BX 



(o'3'3l 
P4 






[:1 l^i;^!?'^ 



'<j^:iii 



^mmmmmm 



m 



mmn^Ui 



mm 






Mil 



^MBltmi 



*-i;.iV-i*. 






^syr^^ui 



tttnini 



T^^^fi^f^H^rHxm Piiy-^i<^ 






. 



THREE REASONS 



¥HY I AM A BAPTIST 



WITH 



A FOUETH KEASON ADDED, 



ON 



COMMLJNiON 



BY J. M. PEl^DLETON, 

PROF. OF THEOLOGY IN UNION UNIVERSITY, MURPEESBORO', TENN. 



THIRTEENTH EDITION. 



NASHVILLE, TENN.: 
GRAVES, MARKS & CO 
18 5 7. 






Entered, according to Act ot Congress, in the year 1856, by 

GRAVES, MARKS & RUTLAND, 

In' the Clerk's Office for the District of Tennessee. 






y 






PREFATORY NOTE. 



If any one wislies to know why the following pages are 
given to the public, the reason is easily furnished. The 
Author was invited, some months since, to preach a Discourse 
at the Dedication of a Baptist Meeting-House. He complied 
with the invitation, and deemed the occasion suitable for 
giving some of his reasons for being a Baptist. Many breth- 
ren have expressed a desire that these Reasons should be 
published, giving it as their opinion, that the publication 
would promote scriptural views of Baptism and Church 
Government. In deference to the wishes of those valued 
brethren, the Discourse has been expanded into the following 
Treatise, and is now submitted to the public. That the day 
may soon come when there shall be, as in apostolic times, 
" one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism," and one form of Church 
Government, is the Author^s fervent prayer. 

J. M. Pendleton. 

Bowling-Green, Kt., May 4, 1853. 

(iii) 



PEEFACE TO THE THIRTEENTH THOUSAND 



My thanks are due to a generous public that my Httle book 
has attained a circulation quite unexpected on my part. 
Having transferred the ^'copyright" to Messrs. Graves, Marks 
& Co., and they being about to bring out a new edition, I 
have made some corrections and improvements which will, 
I think, be regarded as adding to the value of the work. In 
Appendix No 1, I have given a fourth reason for being a 
Baptist, which embraces the subject of Communion at the 
Lord's Table. If some of the views presented are compara 
tively new, I imagine they wiU, on examination, be found 
true. In Appendix No 2, the ' perpetuity' of the covenant of 
Circumcision is maintained. 

In former editions of the work, language was used in 
reference to Mr. Drisler, (on pages 87, 88,) which I am now 
satisfied, does that gentleman injustice. That language is 
materially modified. It was employed at first because I 
labored under a mistake of which, I am happy to say, I have 
been convinced. I will not, if I know it, allow my unmerited 
censure to rest on any one. 

My earnest desire is, that my little book may, by its advo- 
cacy of the truth, be the means of doing good, and I liope it 
will not be thought improper for me to express my gratifica- 
tion, that I have heard oi fourteen persons who were led, by its 
perusal, to renounce the errors of Pedobaptism. I tliank God 
that I have not employed my pen in vain. 

October. 1856. J. M. P. 



THREE REASONS 
WHY I AM A BAPTIST 



Were I to state that I am a Baptist because Bap- 
tists believe the Bible to be the word of God, and 
cordially subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by 
grace — ^justification by faith — regeneration by the 
Holy Spirit, and all kindred topics — some other per- 
son might say, ** I belong to a different religious 
communion for the same reasons." It is necessary, 
therefore, that my reasons embrace the distinctive 
peculiarities of Baptists. In other words, I must 
show why Baptists differ from other religious de- 
nominations. 



REASON FIRST. 

I am a Baptist theriy 

Because Baptists regard the Baptism of in- 
fants AS UNSCRIPTURAL, AND INSIST ON THE BAPTISM 
OF BELIEVERS IN ChRIST— AND OF BELIEVERS ALONE. 

In showing the vaHdity of this reason, I must en- 
ter into an investigation of the subject of Infant Bap- 
tism. The investigation will, I trust, not be wanting 
1* 



G THREE REASONS, 

in impartiality and courtesy. May it result in the de- 
velopment and maintenance of truth ! 

My position is that there is no Scriptural authority 
for infant baptism. Neith'er precept for, nor example 
of it can be found in the Sacred Writings. In estab- 
lishing this position I shall, in opposition to the re- 
quirements of logic, assume the burden of proof and 
attempt to perform a work of supererogation. That 
is to say, I shall endeavor to prove a negative. 

Baptism is a New Testament ordinance. This the 
Westminster Confession of Faith concedes. The 
Mew Testament, therefore, should settle every ques- 
tion relative to baptism. This is the universal opin- 
ion of Baptists. Pedobaptists, however, are not wil- 
>^ing — as we shall see — to make an exclusive appeal 
to the New Testament in determining who are proper 
subjects of baptism. More of this in another place. 

My object at present is to show that there is no 
authority in the New Testament for infant baptism. 
Let us see. *'To the law and to the testimony." 

1. The account given of John^s hajotism affords no 
justification of infant baptism. 

In the third chapter of Matthew it is thus written : 
**In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in 
the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye ; for 

the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand Then went out 

to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in 
Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 7 

many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his 
baptism, he said unto them : generation of vipers, 
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? . 
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance : And ,/ 
think not to say within yourselves, We have Abra- 
ham to our father : for I say unto you that God is 
able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." 

From these verses we learn that John preached re- 
pentance — that those whom he baptized confessed 
their sins — and that descent from Abraham was not 
considered a quahfication for baptism. There is 
nothing in the narrative that can suggest the idea of 
the baptism of impenitent adults or unconscious in- 
fants. And this is equally true of the account of the 
Harbinger's ministry given by the other three evan- 
gehsts. 

Paul, in explaining John's baptism, says, ''John 
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, say- 
ing unto the people that they should believe on him 
who should come after him, tliat is, on Christ 
Jesus." Acts, xix. 4. Here it is plain that John I'e- 
quired repentance and faith in the Messiah in those 
he baptized. There is not the remotest allusion to 
the baptism of any who either did not or could not 
repent and believe in Christ. Baptists, so far as the 
subjects of baptism are concerned, certainly copy the 
example of the first Baptist. 

2. The disciples of Christ baptized no infants during 
his ministry. 






8 TRREE REASONS. 

The only I'eference we have to the baptisms admin- 
istered by them before the Redeemer's death and 
resurrection is in John iii, 26, and iv, 1, 2. It 

ight be inferred from the third chapter that Jesus 
imself baptized, but the first two verses of the 
fourth chapter explain the matter as follows : ** When 
therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had 
heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but 
his disciples," &c. 

Baptism was not administered by the Savior, but 
as his apostles acted under his authority, he is 
represented as doing what was done by his direc- 
tion. The fact, however, which deserves special 
attention is that Jesus made and baptized more dis- 
ciples than John. There is a distinction between 
making and ha.'ptizing disciples. First in order was 
the process of discipleship to Christ, and then bap- 
tism as a recognition of discipleship. Could infants 
be made disciples? Manifestly not. Then, accord- 
ing to this passage, they were not eligible to baptism ; 
for the inference is irresistible that none were bap- 
tized who were not first made disciples. 

The portions of Scripture quoted, taken together, 
may be considered fair exponents of the baptismal 
practice from the beginning of John's ministry to the 
death of Christ. I do not ask whether infant bap- 
tism is named ; is it even indirectly alluded to ? Let 
the candid reader answer. 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 9 

3. The oft-repeated verse, "• Suffer little children, 
and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is 
the kingdora of heaven'^ — does not justify ivfant hai^- 
tism. 

For what purpose were 'these children taken to 
Christ? That he should baptize them? Evidently 
not; for he did not baptize. Were they carried to 
him that his disciples might baptize them ? If so, 
it is marvelous that the disciples rebuked those who 
had charge of them. The preceding verse shows 
why these children were taken to Christ. **Then 
were there brought imto him little children, that he 
should put his hands on them, and pray : and the dis- 
siples rebuked them.*' Matt. xix. 13. There was a 
specific object in view. It was not that tlie *' little 
children" might be baptized, but that the Savior 
might put his hands on them and pray. Who has 
the right to infer that these children were baptized 
or that baptism was named in their presence ? It is 
often argued that the phrase, ''of such is the king- 
dom of heaven,'* indicates that those children were 
'* members of the visible church.'' This does not 
follow. The Savior does not say that these children 
were of the kingdom of heaven; but he says, ''of 
such is the kingdom of heaven." The idea of re- 
semblance is clearly presented. Rev. A. Banies, in 
his notes on the passage, says, '' Of such as these — 
that is, of persons with such tempers as these — is 
the church to be composed. He does not say of 



10 THREE REASONS, 

those iyifanis, but of such persons as resembled them, 
or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of 
heaven made up. It was proper, therefore, that he 
should pray for them.''. Mr. Barnes is good Presby- 
terian authority, and is highly celebrated as an ex- 
positor of Scripture. In Matthew xviii, 3, the Savior 
says, ** Except ye be converted, and become as httle 
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of 
heaven." Here we have again the idea of resem- 
blance between little children and converted persons, 
but there is not a word concerning infant baptism. 
May I not say that the JSTew Testament, from the 
birth of John the Baptist to the death of Christ, is as 
silent as the grave in reference to the baptism of in- 
fants ? However, if Pedobaptists were to admit this, 
they would still insist, many of them at least, that 
there is authority for their practice bearing date sub- 
sequent to the Redeemer's death and resurrection. 
Let us see whether there is such authority. 

4. The commission given by the Savior to his apostles 
just before his ascension to heaven, furnishes no plea 
for infant baptism. 

The circumstances connected with the giving of 
this commission were' replete with interest. The 
Savior had finished the work which he came down 
from heaven to accomphsh. He had offered himself 
a sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted tl^e cup of 
atoning sorroAv. He had lain in the dark mansions 
of the grave. He had risen in triumph from the 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. It 

dead, and was about to ascend to the right hand of 
the Majesty on high. Invested with perfect media, 
torial authority, he said to his apostles: ''All power 
is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye 
therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatso- 
ever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." 
Matthew, xxviii, 18, 19, 20. Mark records the same 
commission thus: *'Go ye into all the world and 
preach the gospel to every creature. He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned." Marie, xvi, 15, 16. 
Luke represents the Savior as saying, ''Thus it is 
written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to 
rise from the dead the third day ; and that repent- 
ance and remission of sins should be preached in his 
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 
Luke, xxiv, 46, 47. 

Surely the language of this commission is plain. 
Matthew informs us that teaching, or making disciples 
(for the verb matheteuo means make disciples) is to 
precede baptism — Mark estabhshes the priority of 
faith to baptism, and Luke connects repentance and 
remission of sins with the execution of the commis- 
sion. ]^o man can, in obedience to this commission, 
baptize an unbehever or an infant. The unbeliever 
is not a penitent disciple, and it is obviously im- 



12 THREE REASONS, 

possible for the infant to repent and believe the 
gospel. 

I lay it doAvn as a principle of common sense, 
which commends itself, to every unprejudiced mind, 
that a commission to do a thing or things authorizes 
only the doing of that thing or those things specified in 
it. The doing of all other things is virtually pro- 
nibited. There is a maxim of law — Expressio unius 
est exclusio alterius.'^ It must necessarily be so; for 
otherwise there could be no definiteness in contracts 
between men, and no precision in the enactments of 
legislative bodies, or in the decrees of courts of jus- 
tice. This maxim might be illustrated in a thousand 
ways. Numerous Scriptural illustrations are at hand. 
I will mention a few: God commanded JSToah to 
make an ark of gopher-wood. He assigns no reason 
why gopher- wood should be used. The command, 
however, is positive and it forbids the use of every 
other kind of wood. Abraham was commanded to 
offer his son Isaac for a burnt- offering. He was virtu- 
ally forbidden to offer any other member of his family. 
Ay more, he could not offer an animal till the 
original order was revoked by him who gave it, and 
a second order was given, requiring the sacrifice of a 
ram in the place of Isaac. The institution of the 
passover furnishes a striking illustration, or rather a 
combination of illustrations. A lamb was to be 

*The expression of one thing is the exclusion of anotLef 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 13 

killed — not a heifer — it was to be of the first year — 
not of the second or third — a male — not a female — - 
without blemish — not with blemish — on the four- 
teenth day of the month — not on some other day — 
Clie blood was to be appHed to the door-posts and lin- 
tels — not elsewhere, &c. The constitution of the 
State of Kentucky supplies many illustrations. I 
avail myself of but one. It is provided that Judges 
(appellate and circuit) shall be removed from office 
by the Governor "on the address of two-thirds of 
^^ch house of the General Assembly/' and pro- 
vision is also made for their removal by impeach- 
ment. These are the two methods of removal known 
to the constitution. I ask if all other methods of re- 
moval are not virtually prohibited ? Let every man 
divest himself of prejudice and answer. 

In application of the principle I have laid down, 
and of the law-maxim I have illustrated, I affirm 
that the commission of Christ to the apostles in re- 
quiring them to baptize disciples, believers, prohibits 
in effect the baptism of all others. It will not do to 
say we are not forbidden in so many words to bap- 
tize infants. The same may be said of unbehevers ; 
ay, of horses, and cattle, and bells. 

Rev. F. G. Hibbard, a Methodist minister "of the 
Genessee conference," in his work on "Christian 
Baptism," comments with some severity on an ex» 
tract he makes from "Jewett on Baptism. '^ Jewett, 
in illustrating the view of the commission already 



14 THREE REASONS, 

presented says, ''If I commission my agent to pur- 
chase for me a lot of Webster's la7*ge dictionaries, 
does he not violate his instructions, if he also buy on 
my account a lot of the al>ridgments ? But he says, 
'You did not forbid the purchase of the abridg- 
ments/ Did not forbid the purchase ! I answer, it 
ivas not necessary for me to insert in your commis- 
sion a prohibition against purchasing other books. 
Your instructions were definite ; and when I directed 
you to buy the large books, you must have known 
that you had no authority to buy small books ; you 
have done it at your own risk." 

Mr. Hibbard says, "All this shows just how far 
^ome authors look into a subject before they pro- 
nounce upon it. The analogy, however an unprac- 
ticed reader may be influened by it, is an unfair and 
perfectly puerile statement of the case. For in the 
first place, Pedobaptists do not take their authority 
for baptizing infants from the mere absence of a pro- 
hibition of such a practice, as the pretended analogy 
teaches. We know not, indeed, how a Christian au- 
thor could make such a representation of the opin- 
ions of his brethren. All we affirm touching this 
point is, that the total absence of a prohibition, in this 
particular commission, does not prove a universal 
prohibition; it proves nothing at all, either pro or 
con. And yet our author attempts to prove that the 
absence of an express prohibition, in this specific 
case, does directly prove a general prohibition. Fur- 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 15 

tliermore, the analogy is without any just force what- 
ever, because, although a command to buy large 
books, is no authority for the purchase of small 
books ; and a command to baptize believers is no au- 
thority for baptizing mfants, yet as such commands 
contain no prohibition, there may exist circum- 
stances, or there may, in another way, be instruc- 
tions communicated, to authorize the purchase of 
the small books, alias the baptism of infants ; and 
this may be such a perfect matter of understanding 
between the master and the 'agent,' as to render it 
wholly unnecessary to specify it. And this, we 
maintain, is the exact state of the case in relation to 
infant baptism." Pp. 235, 236. 

Mr. Hibbard has been pronounced by a dis- 
tinguished Baptist minister, *'the Carson of his de- 
nomination on the subjects and mode of Baptism." 
This is high eulogy ; for Baptists consider Carson's 
work on Baptism the ablest which the baptismal con- 
troversy has elicited. Far be it from me to dispar- 
age Mr. H.'s book. It displays more ability and 
scholarship than any Methodist work I have read. 
With a disposition, therefore, to do him perfect justice, 
I solicit the reader's attention to the concession made 
in the foregoing extract. A more comprehensive con- 
cession could not be expected from a Pedobaptist. It 
is conceded that *' a command to baptize believers is no 
authority for baptizing infants,'^ Yery well. This 



16 THREE REASONS, 

is the position Baptists have ever maintained. The 
commission of Christ to his apostles requires the 
baptism of behevers: therefore it does not, Mr. H. 
being judge, authorize the baptism of infants. It 
may be more satisfactory to present the argument in 
syllogistic form. Here it is : A command to baptize 
believers is no authority for baptizing infants : The 
commission contains a command to baptize believers : 
therefore the commission is no authority for baptizing 
infants. If there is a flaw in this syllogism, or if it 
does Mr. H.'s concession the least injustice, I am not 
aware of it. I conclude, then, that Mr. H. will not 
hesitate to say, with Baptists, that the commission 
does not authorize infant baptism. Still he insists 
strenuously on the baptism of infants, and argues 
that there is authonty for the practice, independent 
of the commission. This is strange indeed. For it 
is plain from the consolatory assurance subjoined to 
the commission, that the Lord Jesus intended that it 
should remain in full force to the end of the world. 
Here, then, was a commission given by Christ, which 
enjoined baptism upon believers to the close of 
time — a commission which, according to the general 
view of Pedobaptists, originated Christian baptism — 
a commission in which there is no reference to infants 
at all — and yet infants, as Mr. Hibbard teaches, are 
to be baptized ! It is strange that his philosophical 
mind did not perceive that the perfect silence of the 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 17 

cGmmission, in regard to infants, furnishes, to say the 
least, strong p7'ima facie evidence against the vahdity 
of their claim to baptism. 

But, says Mr. H., referring to Mr. Jewett's illus- 
tration, *Hhere may exist circumstances, or there 
may, in another way, be instructions communicated, 
to authorize the purchase of the small books, alias 
the baptism of infants ; and this may be such a per- 
fect matter of understanding between the master and 
the * agent,' as to render it wholly unnecessary to 
specify it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state 
of the case in relation to infant baptism." 

Mr. Jewett's commission to his agent to buy "Web- 
ster's large dictionaries, is intended to represent 
Christ's commission to his apostles to baptize be- 
lievers. Mr. H. says, *'a command to buy large 
books, is no authority for the purchase of small 
books;" but he urges that authority to buy small 
books may be given in another way. The question, 
however, arises, Is it given? And Mr. J.'s illustra- 
tion supplies a negative answer. For if the agent 
had authority to buy small dictionaries, it is incon- 
ceivable that the principal should call him to ac- 
count for buying them, and require him to sustain 
whatever loss might accrue from the purchase. 
Thus it appears that while Mr. H. complains of the 
unfairness of Mr. J.'s analogy, he overlooks one of 
the most important points in the analogy. The agent, 
according to the illustration, could have had no au- 
2^ 



18 THREE REASONS, 

aiority to buy small books, and yet Mr. H. will have 
it that the authority was so well understood between 
the principal and agent, that it was needless to 
specify small books in the' commission of the princi- 
pal to the agent! **And this, we maintain, — says 
he, — is the exact state of the case in relation to in- 
fant baptism/' That is to say, the matter was so 
well understood between Christ and his apostles that 
they were to baptize infants ; that it was ** wholly un- 
necessary'' for him in the commission to command 
them to do so ! A private understanding, apart from 
the commission, was it? If Mr. H.'s view is cor- 
rect, it is difficult to say why the commission was 
given at all. If the apostles understood that they 
were to baptize infants — and if that understanding 
superseded the necessity of the mention of infants in 
the commission — surely their understanding that 
they were to baptize believers, disciples, rendered it 
needless for believers, disciples, to be named. More- 
over, the apostles had baptized the disciples Jesus 
made during his ministry — and they baptized no in- 
fants — to say the least, it has never been proved that 
they did — if, therefore, the Savior had intended that 
both believers and infants should be baptized, it is 
much more reasonable to suppose that he would liave 
mentioned infants than believers. The apostles had 
witnessed many exemplifications of believers' bap- 
tism — of infant baptism they knew nothing — and it 
was specially necessary for the baptism of infants to 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 9 

be enjoined in the commission, if the Savior consid- 
ered them proper subjects of the baptismal iite. 
Why was not their baptism enjoined ? Why ? The 
only answer is, it was not the will of the author of 
the commission. 

From this somewhat extended examination of the 
commission, I feel fully authorized to say that it 
furnishes no plea for infant baptism. I know it will 
be said — for it has been said a thousand times — that 
if infants are not to be baptized because they can- 
not beHeve, they cannot be saved because they can- 
not beheve. If the salvation of infants depends on 
their faith they cannot be saved. They are incapa- 
ble of faith. They are doubtless saved through the 
mediation of Jesus Christ, but it is not by faith. It 
seems to me that our opponents egregiously fail to 
accomplish their object in urging this objection to our 
views. They must intend to make us admit the pro- 
priety of infant baptism, or force us to a denial of 
infant salvation. But we make neither the admis- 
sion nor the denial. As soon as we say that infants 
are not saved by faith, but without faith, their ob- 
jection is demolished. 

5. There is no instance of infant baptism on the day 
of Pentecost, 

This fact is worthy of special consideration. The 
apostles were, on that memorable day, copiously im- 
bued with the Holy Spirit — they were baptized in the 



20 THREE REASONS, 

Spirit — tliey were endued with power from on high. 
All things whatsoever Jesus had said to them were 
brought to their remembrance. They were requifed 
for the first time to show their understanding of the 
commission of their ascended Lord. How did they 
understand it? How did they execute it? First, 
the gospel was preached. The people were pierced 
to the heart, and said, **Men and brethren, what shall 
we do?" Then Peter said unto them, ''Repent, 
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise 
is unto you and to your children, and to all that are 
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
call.'' No one contends that the command, *' Re- 
pent,'' is applicable to infants, and it is certain that 
the injunction, "Be baptized," has no reference to 
them ; for it is as clear as the sun in heaven that the 
same persons are commanded to repent and be bap- 
tized. It is supposed by some, however, that the 
phrase, '' The promise is unto you and your children," 
refers to infants. The term children evidently mean^ 
posterity, and the promise cannot be divested of its 
relation to the Holy Spirit. This promise was not 
only to the Jews and their posterity, but to Gen- 
tiles — ''to all that are afar off!" This restriction is 
laid upon the promise — ''even as many as the Lord 
our God shall call." And whether the term "call" 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 21 

is used in its general sense, as in Proverbs viii, 4, or 
in its special sense, as in 1 Cor. i, 24, it is in either 
case inapplicable to infants. 

Did any obey Peter's command, *'Be baptized?'' 
It is written, *'Then they that gladly received his 
word, were baptized : and the same day there were 
added unto them about three thousand souls." The 
baptism was limited to those who gladly received 
Peter's word, and as infants were obviously not of 
that number, to infer that they were baptized is ut- 
terly gratuitous. There is nothing in the Pentecostal 
administration of baptism which intimates that infants 
were considered proper subjects of the ordinance. 

6. There is nothing like infant baptism in the account 
given of Philips s labors in Samaria. 

The reader can examine for himself the eio^hth 
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There it will 
be seen that Philip began to execute the commission 
of the Savior hj preaching. He ** preached Christ 
unto them." He doubtless remembered the words 
of the risen Redeemer, *'Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that 
belie veth and is baptized shall be saved," etc. The 
Samaritans *' believed Philip preaching the things 
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of 
Jesus Christ" — and what then ? ** They were bap- 
tized both men and women." 

Here was a practical exposition of the commis- 
sion of Christ. Is there anything in this expositioD 



22 THREE REASONS, 

which can suggest the idea of infant dedication to 
God in baptism ? Surely not. Philip's plan of ope- 
ration was evidently uniform. Hence, when he fell 
in with the Ethiopian eunuch — as we learn from the 
latter part of the same chapter — he first ''preached 
unto him Jesus.'* The eunuch professed /az^A in the 
Messiah. Then Philip haiotized him. As ** faith 
confes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," 
there must be preaching before faith, and there must 
be faith prior to baptism, because this is the order 
established by Christ, in the commission. Alas for 
those who invert this order ! 

7. The household baptisms recorded in the New Tes\ 
lament do not sustain the practice of infant baptism, 

I will take them in their order. In the tenth 
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, there is an ac- 
count of Peter's visit to Cornelius. He preached, 
and the Spirit was poured out. His Gentile hearers 
spoke with tongues and magnified God. Then said 
Peter, *' Can any man forbid water, that these should 
not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost 
as well as we ? And he commanded them to be 
baptized in the name of the Lord." Here was a 
household baptism, but there are things said of the 
subjects of this baptism thal^ could not be true of 
unconscious infants. One fact, however, settles the 
whole matter. In the second verse of the chapter it 
is said that Cornelius ** feared God with all his 
housed Can infants fear God ? 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 23 

The baptism of Lydia and her household is next 
in order. The reader will please read the narrative,. 
Acts, xvi, 13, 14, 15. No one denies that Lydia 
was a believer. She was, therefore, a proper subject 
of baptism. But it is inferred that as her household 
was baptized, infants must have been baptized. This 
does not follow, for the very good reason that there 
are many households in which there are no infants. 
The probability is — and it amounts almost to a cer- 
tainty — that Lydia had neither husband nor children. 
She was engaged in business — was *'a seller of pur- 
ple, of the city of Thyatira '' — which was about 
three hundred miles from Philippi. If she had had a 
husband and infant children, is ifc not reasonable to 
suppose that her husband would have taken on him- 
self the business in which she was engaged, allowing 
her to remain at home with the infant children ? She 
evidently had no husband with her ; for it cannot be 
supposed that she violated conjugal propriety so far 
as to reduce her husband to a cipher, by saying 
'^ my house^'' etc. Nor can we believe that the 
sacred historian would have spoken of the house of 
Lydia, in verse forty, if she had had a husband. 
The most reasonable inference is that her household 
consisted of persons in her employ — that they be- 
lieved and were baptized as well as Lydia — and that 
they were the ''brethren'' whom Paul and Silas 
** comforted," when released from prison, they *' en- 
tered into the house of Lydia." 



24 TRREE REASONS, 

I have said enough to invalidate Pedobaptist ob- 
jections to the Baptist explanation of this narrative, 
and I am required to do nothing more. Pedobaptists 
affirm that Lydia had infant children. On them then 
devolves the burden of proof. They must prove that 
she had infant children. This they never have 
done — this they never can do. And hence the 
narrative furnishes no argument which can logically 
inure to their benefit. 

The same chapter (Acts, xvi,) contains a record 
of the baptism of the jailer and his household. 
Here it is necessary to say but little ; for every one 
can see that there were no infants in the jailer's 
family. Paul and Silas ** spake unto him the word 
of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. ^^ It is 
also said that the jailer '* rejoiced, believing in God 
with all his house. ^^ Surely the word of the Lord 
was not spoken to infants — surely infants are in- 
capable of believing. It is worthy of notice that this 
record shows how Paul understood the commission 
of Christ. It is only necessary to refer to the house- 
hold of Crispus (Acts, xviii, 8,) to show what has 
just been shown ; namely, that a man's house may 
believe on the Lord as well as himself. It is not 
said in so many words that the house of Crispus 
was baptized, but it is said that he ** believed on the 
Lord with all his housed* 

In 1 Cor. i, 16, Paul says: *'And I baptized also 
whe household of Stephanas/' etc. Will any one 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 25 

infer that there were infants in this famJy ? This 
inference cannot be drawn in view of what the same 
apostle says in the same epistle, (xvi, 16): **Ye 
know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first 
fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints.'' Infants could 
not addict themselves to the ministry of the saints. 
It follows that there were no infants in the family of 
Stephanas. I am aware that, to invalidate this con- 
clusion y s, ck^^onolo^ical argument has been used. It 
has been urged that although infants were baptized 
in the family of Stephanas, when Paul planted the 
church at Corinth, sufficient time elapsed between 
their baptism and the date of Paul's first epistle to 
the church, to justify the declaration — *'they have 
addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 
This argument avails nothing in view of the fact that 
the most liberal chronology allows only a few years 
to have intervened between the planting of the 
church and the date of the epistle. 

I have now referred to all the household baptisms 
mentioned in the i!^ew Testament, and there is no 
proof that there was an infant in any of them. On 
the other hand, facts and circumstances are related 
which render it a moral certainty that there were no 
infants in those baptized families. It will not do to 
say that ordinarily there are infants in households. 
It must be shown that it is universally the case. 
Then the household argument will avail Pedcbap^ 
3 



26 THREE REASONS, 

tists — not till then. But it can never be predicated 
of all households that there are infants in them. 
Many a Baptist minister, in the United States, has 
baptized more households^ than are referred to in the 
New Testament — and no infants in them. It is said 
that thirty entire household baptisms have occurred 
in connection with American Baptist Missionary ope- 
rations among the Karens. In view of facts like 
these, how sophistical appear the reasonings of Pe- 
dobaptists, in reference to the household baptisms of 
the New Testament. 

8. The allusions to baptism in the apostolical epistles 
forbid the supposition that infants ivere baptized. 

Paul refers to the '^ baptized^' as **dead to sin'' — 
as rising from the baptismal waters to '* walk in new- 
ness of life'' — as *' putting on Christ'' — as ** risen 
with him through the faith of the operation of 
God" — as "baptized for the dead," or in the belief 
of the resurrection — as making **a profession of 
faith" — a ''profession before many witnesses," etc. 
These phrases are utterly destitute of meaning if 
applied to unintelligent babes. 

Peter defines baptism to be the ** answer of a good 
conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead." This is a general definition. 
And it forbids the idea that baptism was, in apostolic 
times, administered to any except accountable agents. 
What conscience has an infant ? There is no opera- 
tion of conscience prior to accountability. Baptism, 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 27 

then, in its administration to infants, cannot be what 
Peter says it is. This is, for Pedobaptists, an un- 
fortunate fact — a fact significant of the unscriptur- 
ality of their practice. 

There is, in this connection, another thing 
worthy of consideration. Paul, in his epistles to the 
Ephesians and Colossians, exhorts children to obey 
their parents, etc. It is generally supposed that 
about ten years intervened between the introduction 
of the gospel into Ephesus and Colosse, and the 
writing of those epistles. Now, if those children, or 
any of them, had been baptized when the gospel was 
introduced into those cities, is it not strange that the 
apostle, in urging obedience upon them, presented 
no motive derived from their *' dedication to God in 
baptism?" There is no allusion to any **vows, 
promises, and obhgations," made and assumed foi 
them by their parents or sponsors at their baptism. 
There is nothing said analogous to the personal ac- 
ceptance of a draft drawn upon them in anticipation 
of their intelligence and responsibility. Here I pre- 
sent a query: Would a Pedobaptist apostle have 
pursued this course? To bring the matter nearer 
home : Would a Pedobaptist Missionary v/rite a let- 
ter to a Pedobaptist church — making special men- 
tion of parents and children — urging both to a faith- 
ful performance of relative duties — and say nothing 
of the obligations of either parents or children, as 
connected with, or growing out of infant baptism ? 



28 THREE REASONS, 

I suppose no one has sufficient credulity to ansf^ei 
the question affirmatively. The apostle of the Gen- 
tiles, therefore, did what we cannot reasonably im- 
agine a Pedobaptist missionary or minister to do I 
All whom it concerns may, if they please, consider 
this a suggestive fact. 

9. The language of 1 Cor, vii, 14, — ''Else were 
your children unclean, but now are they holy'' — has no 
reference to infant baptism. 

This passage is often quoted with an air of tri- 
umph, as if it conclusively settled the question. 
There is not the remotest allusion to baptism. What 
ire the facts in the case ? Simply these : The ques- 
ion was agitated at Corinth, whether believing 
lusbands and wives should not separate themselves 
from their unbelieving partners ? The idea was en- 
tertained by some, at least, that an unbehever was 
'^ unclean'' to a believer, even as a Gentile was, 
under the Mosaic dispensation, ''unclean'' to a 
Jew. Paul corrects this false impression, by showing 
that *' the unbeHeving husband is sanctified by the 
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
husband." Without entering into a critical ex- 
amination of the term ''sanctified," I avail myself 
of the fact that the sanctification was such as to jus- 
tify the continuance of the marriage relation between 
the believing and the unbelieving partner. "Else " — - 
that is, if the sanctification did not remove the sup- 
posed uncleanness from unbelieving parents — "were 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 29 

your cliildren unclean; but now are they holy." 
The passage is intensely strong against infant baptism. 
It shows that the children of the members of the Corin- 
thian church, sustained the same relation to the church 
that unbelieving husbands and wives did, and that 
if believing husbands and wives abandoned their un- 
believing partners, beUeving parents might, with the 
same propriety, separate themselves from their chil- 
ren. Perhaps a distinguished Pedobaptist's exposi- 
tion of the passage may be more satisfactory than 
mine. Mr. Barnes says : ** There is not one word 
about baptism here ; not one allusion to it ; nor does 
the argument, in the remotest degree, bear upon it. 
The question was not whether children should be 
baptized, but it was whether there should be a sepa- 
ration between man and wife, where the one was a 
Christian and the other not. Paul states, that if 
such a separation should take place, it would imjply 
that the marriage was improper ; and, of coursCy the 
children must be regarded as unclean." 

Thus it appears that this passage, so often made 
the basis of sophistical arguments, affords no support 
to the cause of infant baptism. 

I have now noticed the prominent Nev/ Testament 
arguments for infant baptism. Is there precept or 
example to justify it ? Celebrated Pedobaptists 
shall answer this question. Dr. Wall, in his ** His- 
tory of Infant Baptism," on the very first page of 
8* 






30 THREE REASONS, 

his '* Preface/' says, that ''among all the persons 
that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there 
is no express mention of any infant." Neander, un- 
doubtedly the first churcli historian of his age, re- 
ferring to ''the latter part of the apostolic age," ex- 
presses himself thus: "As baptism was closely 
united with a conscious entrance on christian com- 
munion, faith and baptism were always connected with 
one another; and thus it is in the highest degree 
probable that baptism was performed only in in- 
stances where both could meet together, and that 
the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this 
period. We cannot infer the existence of infant 
baptism from the instance of the baptism of whole 
families, for the passage in 1 Cor. xvi, 15, shows the 
fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it appears 
that the whole family of Stephanas, who were bap- 
tized by Paul, consisted of adults." Planting and 
Training of the Church, pp. 101, 102. Professor 
Stuart, in his Essay on Baptism, in the reference he 
makes to infant baptism, says : " Commands, or plain 
and certain examples, in the New Testament, relative 
to it, I do not find. Nor with my views of it, do I 
need them." P. 101. Dr. Woods, long a col- 
league of Professor Stuart, in the Andover Seminary, 
in his " Lectures on Infant Baptism," remarks as 
follows : "It is a plain case that there is no express 
precept respecting infant baptism in our Sacred Writ- 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 3.1 

ings. The proof, then, that infant baptism is a di- 
vine institution, must be made out in another way.'^ 
P. 11. 

These are important concessions, made by men 
whose celebrity is co-extensive with Christendom. 
Now if the New Testament does not sustain infant 
baptism, ought it not to be given up? If, as the 
Westminster Confession affirms, *' Baptism is a sa- 
crament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus 
Christ," it is self-evident we ought to go to the New 
Testament to learn who are proper subjects, of bap- 
tism. If it was ordained by Jesus Christ, we should 
allow him to decide who are to be baptized, and not 
refer the matter to either Abraham or Moses. But 
Pedobaptists, unable to prove infant baptism from the 
New, go to the Old Testament, and try to sustain it by 
reasoning, analogy, inference. Was there ever such 
a course adopted before to establish a divine ordin- 
ance ? Ask a Jew why his ancestors, for so many 
centuries, observed the feasts of the Passover, Pen- 
tecost, and Tabernacles ? and he will tell you that 
God commanded them to do so. Ask a Christian 
why believers should be baptized and partake of the 
Lord's supper ? and his response will be, these are 
injunctions of Jesus Christ. Ask a Pedobaptist, 
however: why infants ought to be baptized ? and he 
will at once plunge into the mazes of Judaism, and 
argue the identity of the old ** Jewish Church," and 




32 THREE REASONS, 

the Gospel Church, insisting, in the meantime, most 
strenuously on the substitution of baptism for circum- 
cision. This is a strange method of proving that 
infants ought to be baptized. It argues a conscious- 
ness of the utter absence of New Testament au- 
thority for infant baptism. It indicates that there is 
no command to baptize infants ; for a command 
would supersede the necessity of argument to show 
the propriety of the practice. No man enters into an 
argument to prove that believers ought to be bap- 
tized. The positive injunction of Christ renders it 
superfluous. 

Pedobaptists assume the identity of what they call 
the ''Jewish Church," with the Christian Church, 
and on this ground insist on infant membership. I 
shall allow some of their distinguished men to speak 
for themselves. Mr. Hibbard says: *'Our next 
proper position relates to the substantial oneness, or 
identity, of the Jewish and Christian Churches. I 
say substantial oneness, because, although in many 
secondary and adventitious points they differ, still, in 
all the essential features of the real church of God, 
they are one and the same. And here it is proper to 
admonish the reader of the importance of this posi- 
tion. It is upon this ground that we rest the weinlit 
of the Bible argument for infant baptism.'* Christ- 
ian Baptism, pp. 31, 32. This language is plain and 
easily understood, though any one familiar with tlw 



t^AAM^A .,'. . \0-' d 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 



33 



baptismal controversy, will detect in the phrase ^' suh- 
stontial oneness, ^^ an unwillingness to indorse the 
•'identity" theory without qualification. 

Dr. Miller, for many years a professor in the 
Princeton Seminary, New Jersey, says: *'As the in- 
fant seed of the people of God are acknowledged on 
all hands to have been members of the church, 
equally with their parents, under the Old Testament 
dispensation, so it is equally certain that the church of 
God is the same in substance now that it was then J ^ 
The italics are the Doctor's. Here also is a disposi 
tion to recoil from a bold avowal of the doctrine of 
identity. *' The same in substance " — is the felicitous 
phrase selected to meet the logical exigencies that 
might possibly occur. Again Dr. M. remarks, '-'It 
is not more certain that a man, arrived at mature 
age, is the same individual that he was when an in- 
fant on his mother's lap, than it is that the church, 
in the plentitude of her light and privileges, after the 
coming of Christ, is the same church which, many 
centuries before, though with a much smaller amount 
of light and privilege, yet, as we are expressly told 
in the New Testament, (Acts, vii, 38), enjoyed the 
presence and guidance of her divine Head in the 
wilderness.'' Sermons on Baptism, pp. 18, 19. 

Dr. Rice, in his Lexington Debate, says, '' The 
church, then, is the same under the Jewish and Chris- 
tian dispensations — the same into which God did, by 



34 THREE REASONS, 

r 

'positive law, put pelievers and their children.^' P 
285. 

Dr. R., it will be seen, is bolder than Mr. Hibbard 
or Dr. Miller. He says nothing about ** substantial 
oneness'' — '* the same in substance," etc., but with 
characteristic fearlessness announces his position, and 
to attract special attention, italicizes the words in 
which he expresses it. 

I think I have now fairly stated the Pedobaptist 
view of the identity of the Jewish theocracy, and 
the church of Christ. Can this view be sustained ? 
It is, as I believe, impossible to sustain it. I shall 
aim to show that the position is utterly untenable. 
First, however, let me define the term church. It 
means a congregation, an assembly. The Greeks 
used the term ekklesia, to signify an assembly with- 
out any regard to the purposes for which the as- 
sembly met. Hence the tumultuous concourse of the 
citizens of Ephesus referred to. Acts, xix, 32, and 
41, is called in the Greek Testament ekMesia, and 
the term is translated assembly. The word, there- 
fore, whil^ it denotes an assembly, does not, in its 
o-eneral signification, denote the kind of assembly. 
This being the case, the Jewish nation or congrega- 
tion might with propriety be called ekklesia or 
church. In the New Testament, however, the term 
ekklesia, (generally translated church), in its appli- 
cation to the followers of Christ, refers either to a 



lift^OK 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 35 

particular congregation of saints, or to the redeemed 
in the aggregate. The sacred writers speak of the 
churches of Asia, the churches of Judea, the churches 
of Macedonia, the churches of Galatia, etc., and these 
churches were evidently composed of persons who 
made credible profession of faith in Christ. In 
apostolic times, the members of a particular congre- 
gation were called ** saints," *' believers," ** disci- 
pies," etc. They were separate from the world — a 
spiritual people. Baptists say that in this sense of 
the term Church, there was no church before the 
gospel dispensation. There were, doubtless, many 
pious persons from the days of Abel to the coming 
of Christ, but there was not a body of true saints 
separate from the world. The Jewish nation was 
separated from other nations, but it was not a nation 
of saints. It was a kind of politico-religious body, 
and circumcision was a mark of nationality. The 
righteous and the wicked belonged to this body, and 
were entitled to its privileges. But there was no 
spiritual organization composed of regenerate per- 
sons, called out, separated from the Jews as a people, 
till John the Baptist came preaching in the wilder- 
ness of Judea. I have been thus particular in defin- 
ing the term church, that there may be no misappre- 
hension as to its meaning. 

I now proceed to show that the Jewish theocracy 
and the Christian Church cannot be identical. 

1. Because when the Jewish organization had. been 



36 THREE REASONS, 

ill existence for centuries, the prophets predicted thi 
establishment of a new kingdom. 

In Isaiah ii, 2, it is written, '* And it shall come tc 
pass in the last days, that'the mountain of the Lord's 
house shall be established in the top of the moun- 
tains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all 
nations shall flow unto it." There is manifest refer- 
ence here to the kingdom of Christ. It is not in- 
timated that this kingdom had been estabhshed, but 
it was to be estabhshed. The phrase, '*Last days," 
means what it signifies when Paul says *' God has in 
these last days spoken to us by his Son." It desig- 
nates the period of the gospel dispensation. '1 he 
prophecy of Daniel, ii, 44, deserves special consid- 
eration. Having referred in the interpretation of 
Nebuchadnezzar's dream to the Babylonian, the 
Medo-Persian, the Grecian and the Roman empires, 
he says : ** And in the days of these kings shall the 
God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall nev6r 
be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to 
other people, but it shall break in pieces and con- 
sume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." 
This kingdom was to be set up several centuries after 
Daniel prophesied. The phrase, **Set up," must in- 
dicate the estabhshment of a new kingdom. There 
is no intimation that the old Jewish kingdom was to 
be reorganized. This new kingdom was to stand 
forever. It was not to fall like the secular empires, 
symbolized by the gold, silver, brass and iron of 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 37 

Nebucliadnezzar's image, but it was to be a perma- 
nent kingdom — maintaining an uninterrupted exist- 
ence amid the lapse of ages and the revolutions of time. 
Who does not see that this kingdom must be identical 
with the church of Christ, of which he said: ''The 
gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.'* The* 
kingdom, the church, is to stand. Why? Because 
the machinations of Satan cannot overthrow it. John 
the Baptist referred, in his preaching, to the new 
kingdom. His voice was heard in the wilderness of 
Judea, saying, *' Repent ye; for the kingdom of 
Heaven is at hand." Was it the old Jewish kingdom 
that was at hand? Obviously it was not. Jesus 
Christ, in the very beginning of his ministry, an- 
nounced the same kingdom as at hand. He said, 
** The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at 
hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." The 
time to which the prophets — Daniel especially — re- 
ferred, was fulfilled. The new kingdom was at 
hand. Hence tlie command was, ''Repent ye, and 
believe the gospel." Such preaching had never 
been heard before. The injunction, "repent," was 
new; and the argument enforcing it was new. 
There was something so novel and so distinctive in 
the preaching of Christ and his harbinger, as to indi- 
cate the introduction of a new era. That the preach- 
ing of John was the beginning of a new era, is mani^ 
fest from the Savior's language : " The law and 
•the prophets were until John: since that time the 
^4 



38 THREE REASONS, 

kingdom of God is preached, and every man pres- 
setli into it/' In view of the considerations now 
presented, I ask, how can the Jewish theocracy and 
the Gospel Church be one and the same? If the 
Jewish kingdom and the kingdom of Christ are iden- 
tical, how is it that when the former had been in ex- 
istence for centuries, the organization of the lattei 
was foretold by the prophets? Can the identity of 
the two be established ? Surely not. And yet, upon 
this identity, Mr. Hibbard says, **we rest the weight 
of the Bible argument for infant baptism." It rests, 
then, on a foundation of sand. Mr. H. is in a 
dilemma. He may choose either horn of this di- 
lemma, and it will gore him immercifully. If such a 
foundation can sustain the argument for infant bap- 
tism, there is no weight in the argument : but if the 
weight of the argument crushes the foundation, there 
is no solidity in the foundation. 

2. Another fact fatal to the identity contended for is, 
lihat those who were regular members of the old Jew- 
ish Churchy could not become members of the Gosjyel 
Church without repentance, faith, regeneration and 
baptism. 

The plainness of this proposition renders it need- 
less to dwell upon it at any great length. A few con- 
siderations will sufficiently develop its truth. The 
inhabitants of Judea were, of course, members of 
the *' Jewish Church.'' I would prefer the phrase, 
•' Jewish theocracy " or *' Jewish Commonwealth"^ 






WHY I AM A BAPTIST. S9 

but througli courtesy I will say, ** Jewish Church." 
The Jews in Jerusalem, and in the land of Judea 
were members of this church. John the Baptist 
called on these church members to repent and do 
works meet for repentance, and believe on the com- 
ing Messiah as preparatory to baptism. The Phar- 
isees and Sadducees, two prominent sects among the 
Jews, were church members. John spoke of them 
as a ''generation of vipers.'' The Pharisees had no 
adequate conception of the necessity of a proper 
state of heart, and the Sadducees were semi-infidels. 
They were no doubt recognized as worthy members 
of the Jewish Church, but they were utterly unfit 
for the Church of Christ. John let them know that 
their relationship to Abraham was no qualification 
for a place in the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus 
was a Pharisee, and an official member of this Jew- 
ish Church, and yet was ignorant of the doctrine of 
regeneration. Being ''born again*' was a mystery 
to him. He was an unregenerate man. The Savior 
said to him, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye 
must be born again." JSTor did Jesus regard any of 
the Jews as qualified for baptism till they became his 
disciples. Hence it is said that he ''made and bap- 
tized more disciple^ian John." The Scribes, law- 
yers and doctors of ffie Jewish Church, the great 
Teacher denounced as h^ocrites; "for," says he, 
"ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: 
for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suflPer ye 



40 TRREE REASONS, 

them that are entering, to go in." This passage 
proves two things : That the kingdom of heaven was 
then in existence, and that it w^as not identical with 
the Jewish kingdom. If jt had not been in existence 
it could not have been shut up. If it w^as identical 
with the Jewish kingdom, the Scribes were already 
in it. But they were not in it; for the Savior says, 
''ye neither go in yourselves,'' etc. If, then, they 
were in the Jewish kingdom, and were not in the 
kingdom of heaven, the two kingdoms cannot be the 
same. It is almost an insult to my readers to argue 
a point so plain; but I must meet and refute what 
Pedobaptists call arguments. 

3. It deserves special notice that the covenant of the 
Jewish Church and the covenant of the Gospel Church 
are different. 

The truth of this proposition Pedobaptists deny. 
They assume that the ''covenant of grace," or "gos- 
pel covenant," was made with Abraham, and that 
the "covenant of circumcision" was so identified 
with it that circumcision became the seal of the 
"covenant of grace." On this subject. Dr. Sum- 
mers, a distinguished Methodist divine, may speak 
for the various denominations of Pedobaptists. In 
his late work on B^ism he says that "infants are 
specifically embia^^rm the gospel covenant. When 
that covenant w!^ made with Abraham, his children 
were brought under its provisions, and the same seal 
that was administered to him was administered also 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 41 

to them — including both those that were born in his 
house, and those that were bought with his money. 
They were all alike circumcised in token of their 
common interest in that covenant, of which circum- 
cision was the appointed symbol. That covenant is 
still in force.'' Page 23. 

Here it is assumed that the gospel covenant was 
made with Abraham — that circumcision was its seal, 
etc. Pedobaptists have a decided preference for the 
singular number. They will not say covenants — it is 
covenant in conversation, in books, and in sennons. 
Paul speaks of ''covenants'' — '' covenants of prom- 
ise" — 'Hhe two ccw^7ia?2/5," etc. Howthe ''covenan.t 
of circumcision" can be identified with the *' cove- 
nant of grace," or ''gospel covenant," defies com- 
prehension. What Dr. Summers calls the gospel 
covenant was not made with Abraham. He quotes 
Paul, but Paul does not say so. The language of 
the apostle is, '' The covenant that was confirmed 
before of God in Christ, (that is in reference to the 
Messiah,) the law, which was four hundred and 
thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should 
make the promise of none eflPect." This covenant 
was confirmed to Abraham, not made with him. It 
was made before. It must have had an existence, 
of it could not have been confirmed. The confirma- 
tion of anything implies its previous existence. 

L.3hall not attempt to penetrate the counsels of 
etsi'j^f to ascertain the particulars of the origin of 



42 THREE REASONS, 

the covenant of grace. It is sufficient for my preS' 
ent purpose to say that it is doubtless the result of 
the sublime consultation of the three persons of the 
Godhead in reference to Xhe prospective condemna- 
tion and ruin of the race of Adam. The first inti- 
mation of the existence of this covenant was given 
in the memorable words, '*And I will put enmity 
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
and her seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt 
bruise his heel." This incipient development of 
God's kindness to man no doubt cheered Abel, 
Enoch, and all the pious who lived in the world's 
infancy. The nature of the covenant recognized 
when mercy's faint whisperings were first heard, 
was more fully developed when that covenant was 
covfirmed to Abraham in the remarkable words, '*In 
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." 
Irrespectively of the provisions of this covenant there 
never has been, and there never will be salvation for 
Jew or Gentile. There is no salvation except in the 
Messiah, and Paul informs us that he is referred to 
as the *' seed" of Abraham. ** He saith not, and 1o 
seeds as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, 
which is Christ." The covenant with respect to the 
Messiah was covfirmed to Abraham when he was 
seventy-five years old, (Genesis, xii,) and the cove- 
nant of circumcision was made with him when he had 
reached his ninety-ninth year, (Genesis, xvii). 
Twenty-four years intervened between the two 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 43 

transactions, and yet Pedobaptists insist there was 
but one covenant ! One covenant was confirmed to 
Abraham, and one made with him, and there was 
but one. That is, in Pedobaptist arithmetic, one and 
one do not make two, but one! 

Now if, according to Dr. Summers, the gospel 
covenant was made with Abraham, and if circum- 
cision was the seal of that covenant, then it had no 
seal for twenty-four years after it was made. More- 
over, if the gospel covenant or covenant of grace 
was made with Abraham, by the provisions of what 
covenant were Abel, Enoch and others saved who 
lived before the days of Abraham ? This question 
I submit to all the Pedobaptist doctors of divinity in 
Christendom. If they will only consider it they will 
see how absurd it is to say that the gospel covenant 
or covenant of grace was made with Abraham. If, 
as Dr. Summers affirms, circumcision was the seal 
of this covenant, what became of females? Was 
there no securement of the blessings of tlie covenant 
to them? or were they left to the '* uncovenanted 
mercies^' of God? The truth is, the sacred writers 
never refer to circumcision or baptism as a *'seal" 
of a covenant. Circumcision is called a *' token 
of the covenant" God made with Abraham, and 
a ** seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
had, yet being uncircumcised." It was never a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith of any other man. 
Under the gospel dispensation baptism is not a seal, 



44 THREE REASONS, 

and Pedobaptists know not whereof they affirm 
when they so represent it. Behevers art, '* sealed 
with the Holy Spirit of promise." But, for argu- 
ment's sake, let baptism be considered a seal — a seal 
of the same covenant which, it is said, was formerly 
sealed by circumcision. Then the perplexing ques- 
tion arises. Why apply the seal of baptism to both 
sexes, when the seal of circumcision was applied to 
but one? Circumcision, it is argued, was a type of 
baptism. This is a burlesque on logic. The type 
had reference to males alone. Therefore the anti- 
type lias reference to both males and females ! Such 
reasoning makes sad havoc of common sense. There 
is another absurdity in making baptism the anti-type 
of circumcision. Baptism is referred to by Peter as 
a ''figure." If, then, circumcision was a type of it, 
it was a type of a type, or a figure of a figure, which 
is preposterous. 

But to be more specific with regard to the cove- 
nants : The covenant of circumcision made with 
Abraham received its full development in the cove- 
nant of Mount Sinai. There was, if the expression 
is allowable, a new edition of the covenant. The 
Sinaic regulations were made in pursuance of the 
provisions of the covenant made with Abraham, and 
on this account circumcision, the ''token of the cov- 
enant," was incorporated into those regulations, and 
became a rite of the Mosaic economy. Hence Jesus 
said to the J3ws, *'If a man on the Sabbath day 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 45 

receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not 
he broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made 
a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?'' This 
language shows that the covenant of circumcision 
was so identified with the Sinaic covenant that the 
failure to circumcise a man was a violation of the 
law of Moses. The old Jewish Church, therefore, 
grew out of the covenant of circumcision, which was 
the germ of the Sinaic covenant that God made with 
the Israelites when he '* took them by the hand to 
lead them out of the land of Egypt." This cove- 
nant, entered into at Mount Sinai, was to continue in 
force, and did continue in force, till superseded by 
another and a better covenant. It preserved the 
nationality of the Jews, while circumcision marked 
that nationality, and indicated a natural relationship 
to Abraham. This celebrated patriarch was to have 
a numerous natural seed, to which reference is made 
in the covenant of circumcision — and by virtue of 
the provisions of the covenant confirmed to him in 
reference to the Messiah, he was to have a spiritual 
seed also. He was to be the father of the faithful. 
Hence Paul says, '' They who are of faith, the same 
are the children of Abraham.'' '*If ye be Christ's, 
then are ye Abraham's seed." '' That he might be 
the father of all them that believe, though they be 
not circumcised," etc. The process of spiritual fili- 
ation to Abraham is effected by faith. Jews, there- 
fore, his natural seed, cannot become his spiritual 



46 THREE REASONS, 

seed without faith. But if faith creates the spiritual 
relationship to Abraham, Gentiles may become his 
spiritual seed as well as Jews, for they are equally 
capable of faith. And^ for the encouragement of 
Gentiles who were uncircumcised, Paul refers to the 
fact that Abraham was justified by faith before lie 
was circumcised. ibr 

I have referred to the perfect development of the 
Abrahamic covenant of circumcision in the Sinaic 
covenant. I may now refer to the full development 
of the covenant respecting the Messiah in the new 
covenant, out of which has grown the Gospel Church. 
Tliis is termed the new covenant in contradistinction 
from the Sinaic covenant. The development of its 
provisions was to occur many centuries subsequent to 
the giving of the law, although those provisions had 
an embryo existence in the covenant confirmed to 
Abraham concerning Christ. Jeremiah, in the thirty- 
first chapter of his prophecy, refers to the two cove- 
nants — the old and the new — and Paul, in the eighth 
chapter of Hebrews, quotes Jeremiah as follows: 
'* Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will 
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
with the house of Judah: not according to the cove- 
nant that I made with their fathers, in the day when 
I took them by the hand to lead them out of the 
land of Egypt; because they continued not in my 
covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 
For this is the covenant that I will make with the 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 47 

house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord ; I 
will put my laws into their mind, and write them in 
their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they 
shall be to me a people : And they shall not teach 
every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, 
saying. Know the Lord ; for all shall know me, from 
the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to 
their unrighteousness, and their sins and their in- 
iquities will I remember no more." This is the 
^' new covenant'' — the ''better covenant which was 
established upon better promises" — the covenant 
which is pre-eminently spiritual — and of which Jesus 
is the Mediator. The mediatorship of the Messiah, 
in connection with this covenant, shows that the 
gospel covenant grows out of the covenant ''con- 
firmed of God" to Abraham concerning Christ. 

How essentially different the old covenant and the 
new ! And yet Pedobaptists insist that the old Jew- 
ish Church and the Christian Church are the same ! 
"God found fault with the old covenant," and super- 
seded it by the new one ; and yet, it seems, that the 
new, which supersedes the old, is substantially iden- 
tical with it ! It is strange that men do not observe 
that God, in describino- the new covenant, savs ex- 

pressl}'- " NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT 

I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS" the old COVeuant. 

I suppose it will be said that the Sinaic covenant has 
''vanished away," but that the covenant with Abra- 
ham, of which circumcision was a token, is still in 



48 THREE REASONS • 

force. If this be conceded, it follows inevitably that 
circumcision has not been abolished, but is still obli- 
gatory on Abraham's natural descendants. — See 
Appendix, 'No. II. 

Several distinctive points of difference between the 
old covenant and the new may- be seen in Galatians 
iv, 22-31. Mr. Barnes thinks this portion of Scrip- 
ture rather difficult of exposition. It does no doubt 
present serious difficulties to the mind of a Pedobap- 
tist expositor. The wonder is that the man who has 
anything like a correct understanding of it, can be a 
Pedobaptist. There are four allegorical personages 
referred to by the apostle — namely, Hagar, Ishmael, 
Sarah and Isaac. Hagar was a " bondmaid," and 
gave birth to a son *' after the flesh" — that is, there 
was in his birth no departure from the principles of 
ordinary generation. This *' bondwoman " represents 
the Sinaic covenant, and ** answereth to Jerusalem, 
which now is " — the old Jewish Church, Mount Sinai, 
represented by Hagar, ** gendereth to bondage." 
Hence ** Jerusalem " — the old Jewish Church — is 
said to be *' in bondage ^ith her children." To 
" gender to bondage " Yras all that Sinai could do. 
There was no provision in the Sinaic covenant for 
anything more. Sarah, the free woman, represents 
the new covenant, and the Gospel Church, of which 
that covenant is the charter. She gave birth to 
Isaac, who was born ''by promise" — ** after the 
Spirit" — that is, according to a promise, the fulfill- 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 49 

ment of which involved a supernatural ag'ency. "Je- 
rusalem, which is above" — the Christian Church, 
represented by Sarah, ''is free, which is the mother 
of us all'' — of all Christians. Believers in Christ 
are '* the children of promise, as Isaac was.'' They 
are born ''after the Spirit," and "of the Spirit." 
And thus it is as clear as the sun in his noontide 
glory, that while the old Jewish Church was supplied 
with its members by generation, the Church of Christ 
is furnished with its members by regeneration. This 
is one prominent difference between the two, and it 
is great as that between light and darkness, or im- 
mortality and death. *' But as then," says the 
apostle, "he that was bom after the flesh persecuted 
him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." 
Ishmael persecuted Isaac, and so the children of the 
Sinaic covenant, Abraham's seed according to the 
flesh, persecuted, in apostolic times, the beneficiaries 
of the new covenant, Abraham's spiritual seed. Sinai, 
in "gendering to bondage," also "gendered" a per- 
secuting spirit. And it is worthy of remark, that a 
large infusion of Judaism into the sentiments of a 
religious denomination, will make it a persecuting 
denomination. This fact is both significant and sug- 
gestive. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture ? 
" Cast out the bondwoman and her son ; for the son 
of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son 
of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not 
children of the bondwoman, but of the free." 
5 



50 THREE REASONS, 

Here is authority for keeping all except regenei- 
ate persons out of the church of Christ. '*Cast out 
the bondwoman and her sun.'' The Jews, con- 
sidered as Abraham's natural seed, had no right to 
the blessings and privileges of the church of Christ. 
They had first to become Christ's; then they were 
Abraham's seed in the most important sense. Paul 
never forgot one of the fundamental principles of the 
gospel economy, announced by John the Baptist 
when he said to the Pharisees and Sadducees, '* Think 
not to say within yourselves we have Abraham to 
our father; for I say unto you that God is able of 
these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." 
They were, under the new dispensation, to claim 
nothino^ on the o^round of their lineal descent from 
Abraham. Religion was to be an intensely personal 
concern. Daniel Webster once said, '*The bed of 
death brings every human being to bis pure indi- 
viduality." This is true, but Christianity does the 
same thing before it is done by "the bed of death." 
The gospel places every one on the basis of his 
"pure individuality" before God. But enough on 
this point. I have examined at some length the 
"covenants," about which so much is said in the 
baptismal controversy. I think I have shown that 
the covenant of the Jewish church and the covenant 
of the gospel church are essentially different, and that 
the "substantial identity" of the two churches, as 
contended for by Pedobaptists, cannot be maintained. 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 51 

4. The sitjjposed identity of tlie Jewish Church 
and tlie Christian Church involves absurdities and 
vmpossihilities. 

According to tliis view tlie Scribes, Pharisees, Sad- 
ducees, and all the Jews, were members of the 
church, and yet it is notorious that they procured 
the crucifixion of the Head of the church. These 
church members, many of them occupying ** official 
positions," evinced the most rancorous enmity to 
Jesus Christ, and said, ** We will not have this man 
to reign over us." They charged him with being in 
league with Beelzebub in the expulsion of demons. 
And when he was condemned to death they said, 
** His blood be upon us and our children." Strange 
language for church members to employ! Who can 
believe they were members of a church *'the same 
in substance " with the Christian Church ? This 
view of the matter evidently involves an absurdity. 
Nor is this all. If the Pedobaptist position is ten- 
able the three thousand converts on the day of Pen- 
tecost were added to the church, though they were 
in it before 1 The Lord added daily to the church 
not only the saved, but those already members! 
When a great company of priests became obeditjnt 
to the faith, they joined themselves to the apostles, 
and were put out of the synagogues, though the 
Jews putting them out were of the same church ! 
Saul of Tarsus "persecuted the church and wasted 
it" — "made havoc" of it — and when converted 



52 THREE REASONS, 

became a member of the church, though he had 
always been one! Ay, more, he obtained his author- 
ity to persecute from official members of the church! 
These and many other absurdities and impossibilities 
are involved in the supposition that the Jewish Church 
and the Christian Church are the same. They are 
not the same. The phrases, *' same in substance," 
** substantially identical," etc., cannot avail Pedo- 
baptists; for there is no sort of identity. A ** sub- 
stantial sameness" cannot be discovered with a theo- 
logical microscope. Paul's teaching is that Jesus 
Christ makes *'of twain one new man." That is, 
regenerated Jews and Gentiles are the materials of 
which the new man or church is composed. There 
is reference to an organization, and the descriptive 
epithet ''new^^ is applied to it. Pedobaptists vir- 
tually say that the Lord Jesus did not make a **new 
man.'' They advocate the claims of the *'old man," 
admitting, however, that he is changed in some im- 
material respects, so that his ''substantial identity" 
remains unimpaired. 

What effect would have been produced on the 
minds of the unbelieving Jews in apostolic times if 
it had been intimated that their church was identical 
with the Gospel church? They would have been 
highly insulted. And Paul exemplified the most 
indignant eloquence whenever false teachers at- 
tempted to contaminate the purity of the Christian 
Church with the leaven of Judaism. The old Jew- 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 53 

ish Clmrcli and the Christian Church were then 
regarded by beUevers and unbehevers as essentially 
distinct. No one thought of their ''substantial iden- 
tity;'' for infant baptism was unknown, and there 
was nothing to suggest the ** identity" doctrine. 
The truth is, it is as easy for a camel to go through 
the eye of a needle as for the identity of the Jewish 
Church and the Christian Church to be maintained. 
And if there is no identity, infant membership in 
the Jewish commonwealth is no authority for infant 
membership in the gospel church ; and it is perfectly 
gratuitous to insist that baptism has come in the 
place of circumcision. Still the advocates of infant 
baptism argue that circumcision is superseded by 
baptism, and that as infants were circumcised under 
the old, they should be baptized under the new dis- 
pensation. Hence Dr. Miller says, " Our next step 
is to show that haj)tism has come in the room of cir- 
cumcision, and, therefore, that the former is rightfully 
and properly applied to the same subjects as the 
latter." Again: ** There is the best foundation for 
asserting, that baptism has come in the place of cir- 
cumcision Yet, though baptism manifestly comes 

in the place of circumcision, there are points in regard 
to which the former differs materially from the 
latter." Sermons on Baptism, pp. 22, 23. Here 
the doctrine is stated unequivocally that baptism 
comes in tlie place of circumcision. How it takes its 
place, and yet ''differs materially from it" on some 
5* 



54 TRREE REASONS, 

''points," must ever be a mystery to all men a^ ho 
have not a large share of Jesuitical penetration. 

Dr. Rice says: **It is certain that baptism came 
in place of circumcision-;-that it answers the same 
ends in the church now, that were answered by cir- 
cumcision under the former dispensation." Lexing- 
ton Debate, p. 302. 

Dr. Summers affirms, ''that baptism is the ordi- 
nance of initiation into the church, and the sign and 
seal of the covenant now, as circumcision was for- 
merly, is evident." Summers on Baptism, pp. 25, 26. 

I have now presented strong Presbyterian and 
Methodist authority, and in the face of it I fearlessly 
deny that baptism has come in the place of circum- 
cision. The argument for infant baptism derived 
from the supposed substitution referred to is, in view 
of the following considerations, altogether incon- 
clusive. 

1. It was necessary for the circumcised to be baptized 
before they could become members of the Church of 
Christ. 

How was this, if baptism came in the place of cir- 
cumcision, and is a seal of the same covenant? Was 
the covenant first sealed by circumcision, and subse- 
quently sealed by baptism ? Were there two seals ? 
If so, away goes the substitution theory. If the. 
same persons were circumcised and baptized, there 
was, so far as they were concerned, no substitution 
of baptism for circumcision. In their case circum- 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 55 

cision was not abolished, and nothing could take its 
place. It occupied its own place, and that place had 
to be vacated before anything else could occupy it. 
Dr. Miller speaks of baptism as coming ''in the room^' 
of circumcision; but there was no ''room'' till the 
non-observance of circumcision made ** room." Why, 
then, were those who had been circumcised baptized? 
Why was Jesus himself both circumcised and bap- 
tized ? These are unanswerable questions, if, as Pe- 
dobaptists insist, baptism came in the place of cir- 
cumcision. Dr. Miller's views involve another diffi- 
culty. He says, p. 74, ** The children of professing 
Christians are already in the church. They were 
born members. Their baptism did not make them 
members. It was a public ratification and recogni- 
tion of their membership. They were baptized be- 
cause they were members." 

It is easy to see that these are sophistical assump- 
tions. One fact scatters them to the four winds of 
heaven. That fact is that the New Testament sub- 
jects of baptism are never represented as baptized, 
because they are in the church, but that they may 
enter into it. Dr. M.'s reason for administering bap- 
tism labors under the misfortune of being remarkably 
unscriptural. By the way, if the infants of profess- 
ing Christians are in the church by virtue of their 
birth, this is a very good reason for not baptizing 
them at all. 

Any one who is skilled in the baptismal contro- 



56 THREE REASONS, 

versy can see that Dr. M.'s Ahrahamic and Judalstic 
notions vitiate his logic in its application to evangeli- 
cal subjects. He reasoned in this way: The natural 
seed of Abraham were meijabers of the Jewish national 
Church by virtue of their birth. And so far his rea- 
soning was correct. They were circumcised because 
they Avere by natural generation made beneficiaries 
of the covenant of which circumcision was the 
*Hoken." Genesis xvii, 11. Dr. M.'s next step was 
this : The children of professing Christians are born 
members of the Christian Church, and are entitled 
to baptism, even as Abraham's natural seed were 
entitled to circumcision. But is this true? It is not. 
Whatever rational analogy may be traced between 
circumcision and baptism must inure to the opponents 
of infant baptism. How plain this is ! Abraham's 
natural seed w^ere circumcised because they had a 
birthright interest in the covenant God made with 
Abraham. Christians are Abraham's spiritual seed. 
They become so by faith in Christ, and are bene- 
ficiaries of the new covenant, the provisions of which 
are eminently spiritual. There is a recognition of 
their interest in the blessings of this covenant in 
baptism. It was proper to circumcise Abraham's 
natural seed — it is proper to baptize his spiritual 
seed. But who are his spiritual seed ? Believers in 
Christ, and believers alone. Infants, therefore, have 
no right to baptism, because they are not Abraham's 
spiritual seed. Jewish infants were fit subjects for 



.•.^ 



•VVHY I AM A BAPTIST. 57 

Circumcision, because they were Abraham's natural 
seed ; but neither Jewish nor Gentile infants can be 
his spiritual seed — because of their incapacity to 
exercise faith — and therefore they ought not to be 
baptized. I insist, then, that correct analogical rea- 
soning from circumcision to baptism, saps the very 
foundation of Pedobaptism, and furnishes Baptists 
with an argument, of the strength of which they 
have never fully availed themselves. This may be 
considered a digression. If so I return to the subject 
of which I was treating. I was aiming to show that 
baptism did not come in the place of circumcision, 
and referred to the well known fact that multitudes 
of circumcised persons were also baptized. This, it 
seems to me, could never have taken place if bap- 
tism came in the room of circumcision. The circum- 
cision of Timothy is, in this connection, worthy of 
notice. His mother w^as a Jewess, and his father a 
Greek. Owing to the latter fact, doubtless, he 
remained uncircumcised. After his conversion and 
baptism, Timothy was circumcised by Paul. This 
was done to conciliate the Jews — which shows that 
they considered circumcision a mark of nationality. 
Now, the question arises, Why did Paul circumcise 
Timothy, who had been baptized, if baptism came in 
the place of circumcision? Thus, in the New Testa- 
ment, we have baptism administered after circum- 
cision, and circumcision performed after baptism, and 



58 

yet Pedobaptists say that the one came in the place 
of the other. 

2. A second fact worthy of notice is that circum- 
cision wus confined to one ^ex. 

Premises and conclusions are often the poles 
asunder. Of this we have a striking illustration in 
the reasoning of Pedobaptists from the circumcision 
of children under the old dispensation to the baptism 
of. children under the new. The fact tliey begin 
with is of course this : Male children were circum- 
cised under the Old Testament economy. The de- 
duction is, Therefore male and female children ought 
to be baptized under the gospel economy! Is this 
logic? If but one sex is recognized in the premise, 
how is it that there is a recognition of both sexes in 
the conclusion? There must be something wrong 
in the reasoning, which brings out more in the con- 
clusions than is contained in the premises. This is 
the infelicity of the Pedobaptists' argument in refer- 
ence to the mattei now under consideration. They 
most gratuitously infer, that as children of one sex 
were formerly circumcised, therefore children of 
both sexes should i;iow be baptized. I maintain 
that if baptism came in the place of circumcision, it 
ouoht to be administered exclusively to males. But 
it is by divine authority administered to females; 
therefore it did not come m the place of circumcision. 
Pedobaptists must admit that, so far as females are 



WJIY I AM A BAPTIST. 59 

concerned, baptism did not come in the place of cir- 
cumcision ; for circumcision occupied no place, and 
therefore could not be displaced by anything else. 
This, however, is so plain as to need no elaboration. 

3. The eighth day was appointed for the circumcision 
of infants. 

Is this true of infant baptism ? The thing itself is 
not commanded, to say nothing of the time. But I 
meet Pedobaptists on their own ground. They say 
baptism has come *'in the room of circumcision." 
If they believe this, consistency requires that they 
baptize male children alone, and that they be bap- 
tized on the eighth day. Do they pursue this course? 
They do not, and their failure to do so might, by the 
censorious, be construed into a want of confidence in 
the correctness of their sentiments. 

4. Jewish servants of any age were circumcised hy 
virtue of their relation to their masters. 

Abraham circumcised his servants as well as his 
children. The Jews, no doubt, copied his example. 
The relation servants sustained to their masters, en- 
titled them to circumcision, and made it incumbent 
on the masters to perform the rite. Now, if bap- 
tism has come in the place of circumcision, all Pe- 
dobaptist masters are under obligation to baptize 
their male servants, without regard to age. Those 
born in their houses ought, of course, to be baptized 
on the eighth day, and those '* bought with their 
money," ought to be baptized if they are eighty 



J 



60 THREE REASONS, 

years old. When Pedobaptists adopt this practice. 
Baptists, it is true, will smile at their credulity y but 
respect their sincerity. Who believes that servants 
of any age are entitled ta baptism in consequence of 
the relation they sustain to their masters ? Some few 
may probably be found who believe it, and they — 
they alone — believe that baptism came in the place of 
circumcision. I have intimated that masters ought 
to baptize their own servants. On Pedobaptist 
principles, they ought to baptize their servants and 
children too. Jewish fathers and masters circumcised 
their children and servants. There were no persons 
corresponding to modern *'baptizers,'' called on to 
perform the ceremony. Every father and master 
had the right to officiate, and it is well-known that in 
one instance, (Exodus, iv, 25,) the mother *' cut oflf 
the foreskin of her son." If baptism has taken the 
place of circumcision, it occupies its place; and 
fathers and masters, mothers and mistresses have an 
undoubted right, and it is their imperative duty, to 
baptize their male children and servants. Who, in 
view of this fact, can believe that baptism has come 
in the room of circumcision? 

6. The council of Apostles, Elders and brethren at 
Jerusalem, virtually denied the substitution of baptism 
for circumcision. 

In Acts XV, we have an account of this council. 
The reason for its convocation was this : '* Certain 
men'' went from Judea to Antioch, and '* taught the 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 61 

brethren/' saying: ''Except ye be circumcised afer 
the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved/' Paul 
and Barnabas joined issue with these ''men/-' and 
after much disputation, it was determined to send a 
deputation to Jerusalem, to consult the *' apostles and 
elders about this question.'' Paul and Barnabas be- 
longed to this deputation, and upon their arrival at 
Jerusalem, before the council met, some of the believ- 
ing Pharisees urged the necessity of circumcision. 
The same question, therefore, was agitated both at 
Antioch and Jerusalem. That question was whether 
the believing Gentiles ought to be circumcised. The 
council met, and after due deliberation and consulta- 
tion, **it pleased the apostles and elders, with the 
whole church," to decide against the circumcision of 
the Gentiles. Now, if baptism came in the place of 
circumcision, the apostles knew it ; and this was the 
time to declare it. A simple statement of the fact 
would have superseded all discussion. Why did they 
not say, ''circumcision is unnecessary, because bap- 
tism has taken its place ?" This is what Pedobaptists 
would have said if they had been in that council. 
The inspired apostles, however, did not say it. In- 
deed the decision of the council had reference to the 
beheving Gentiles alone, and the understanding 
evidently was that believing Jews were at libei-ty to 
circunacise their children. This we may learn from 
Acts, xxi, 17 — 25, and it is a fact utterly irrecon- 
cilable with the substitution of baptism for circum- 



62 THREE REASONS, 

cision. When circumcision was regarded as a mark 
to designate nationality, Paul made no objection to it, 
but when its necessity to salvation was urged, he 
considered the great doctrine of justification by faith 
in Christ, disparaged andshorn of its glory. To all 
circumcised with this latter view, he said: **If ye be 
•sircumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing/' But 
to return to the council at Jerusalem : If baptism, 
came in the place of circumcision, the very reason 
which called that council together, must have led to 
a declaration of the fact, and it is infinitely unac- 
countable that it did not. The truth is, baptism was 
not, in apostolic times, considered a substitute for 
circumcision. Hence the Jerusalem council could 
not, and did not say it was. Its decision involved a 
virtual denial of the very thing for which Pedobap- 
tists so strenuouslv contend. 

I have now given a specimen, and but a speci- 
men, of the considerations which show that baptism 
has not come in the place of circumcision. I might 
write a volume on this one point ; but it is needless. 
He who will not be convinced by the five facts already 
presented, would not be convinced '* though one 
should rise from the dead.*' 

The Scripture argument on infant baptism is now 
closed. I have examined the supposed New Testa- 
ment claim of infants to baptism, and also the Old 
Testament claim, and can perceive no mark of 
validity in cither. My readers will, therefore, allow 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 63 

me to indorse what the North British Review, the 
Organ of the Free (Presbyterian) Church of Scot- 

igi 



land says, in its Aus'ust No., 1852 — ** Scripture 



KNOWS NOTHING OF THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS.'' 

From the word of God, Pedobaptists go to Church 
History and seek '* aid and comfort" from its 
records. What does Church History say of infant 
baptism ? Much, I admit, but there is no proof that 
it was practiced before the latter part of the second 
century. The proof is, by no means, conclusive that 
it was practiced before the third century. This the 
reader will see as I proceed. I quote from Dr. 
Wall, of the Church of England, whose ''History of 
Infant Baptism" is in high repute wherever the 
English language is spoken. Referring to the well- 
known passage in Irenaeus, he says: ''Since this is 
the first mention that we have met with of infants 
baptized, it is worth the while to look back, and con- 
sider how near this man was to the apostles' time." 
Irenseus, according to Dr. Wall's chronology, lived 
about the year 1 67. It is well to give the disputed 
passage. Here it is : " For he [Christ] came to save 
all persons by himself: all, I mean, who by him are 
regenerated unto God ; infants, and little ones, and 
children, and youths, and elder persons. Therefore 
he went through every age ; for infants being made 
an infant, sanctifying infants," etc. It is needless to 
quote farther ; for the controversy in reference to 
this passage is about the meaning of the term regen- 



64 THREE REASONS, 

erated. It is renascor in the original. This word 
signifies to regeneratey and the advocates of infant 
baptism affirm that by regeneration, Irenaeus meant 
baptism. This is what Dr. Wall terms the ^* first 
mention," etc. There is one objection fatal to the 
Pedobaptist interpretation of the language of Ire- 
naeus. It makes Jesus Christ the administrator of 
baptism — who '*by him are regenerated," etc. It 
cannot possibly be proved that there is an allusion to 
baptism in this celebrated passage. The learned 
Winer, speaking of infant baptism says, ** Irenaeus 
does not mention it as has been supposed."* 

Dr. Doddridge says: "We have only a Latin 
translation of this work ; and some critics have sup- 
posed this passage spurious ; or, allowing it to be 
genuine, it will not be granted that to he regeneratey 
always in his writings, signifies baptized.*' j[ 

Pedobaptists must deeply feel their need of some- 
thing to sustain their practice when they attempt to 
extort from Irenaeus testimony in favor of infant 
baptism. He says nothing about baptism in connec- 
tion with infants. 

TertuUian, who lived about the year 200, is 
generally referred to by Pedobaptists, as the first 
opponent of infant baptism, but they argue that his 
opposition proves the existence of the practice. If 

* Christian Review, Vol. 3, p. 213. 
t Miscellaneous Works, p. 493. 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 65 

Tertullian alludes to the baptism of infants, it is 
strange that his opposition to it can avail those whose 
views are in direct conflict with his. I insist, how- 
ever, that it is by no means certain that Tertullian 
refers to the baptism of infants at all. The term 
which he uses, and which Dr. Wall translates ''little 
children,'' is '' parvulos.'' Irenseus speaks of '^ in- 
fantes , parvulos,'' etc. He makes a distinction be- 
tween ''infantes" and " parvulos." If Tertullian 
uses the latter term as Irenseus did, he does not re- 
fer to the baptism of unconscious infants, but to the 
baptism of "little children." Whether these "little 
children " were capable of excercising faith in Christ, 
is a question into which I shall not enter. The only 
fact which concerns me is that Tertullian advised a 
delay of the baptism of Utile children. 

Having now come down to the beginning of the 
third century, may I not say that if infant baptism 
rests for its support en the practice of the first and 
the second century, it rests on a foundation of sand ? 
If any man alludes to it during the first two hundred 
years, Tertulhan is that man, and Pedobaptists con- 
cede that he opposed it. 

From Tertullian, Dr. Wall comes to Origen, whom 
he represents as living A. D. 210. Origen wrote in 
Greek, and his w^orks in the original were chiefly 
lost. Hence Dr. Wall uses the followino- lano-uao-e : 
"But concerning the authenticalness of 'em there 
does need something to be said. For the Greek — 
6* 



66 THREE REASONS, 



which is the original — of all Origen's Works being 
lost, except a very few, there remains only the Latin 
translations of 'em. And when these Translations 
were collected together, a great many spurious ones 
were added and mixt with 'em, and went under 
Origen's name. But upon the renewal of Learning, 
the critics quickly smelt 'em out, and admited none 
for his, but such as appeared to have been done into 
Laiin either by St. Hierom or else by Rufinus. * * 
^ % % Ht jg^i; these two men used several methods 
in translating. For, whereas Origen's Books con- 
tained in them several expressions not consistent with 
the Faith in some points, St. Hierom changed noth- 
ing, but expressesed everything as it was in the 
original, as he owns himself: but Rufinus altered or 
left out anything that he thought not orthodox. * * 
Ht % % H: Whereas now in these Translations of 
Rufinus, the reader is uncertain (as Erasmus angrily 
says) whether he read Origen or Rufinus." History 
of Infant Baptism, chap. 5. Rufinus, Dr. Wall con- 
cedes, translated Origen's Homilies on Leviticus, 
and his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 
Here we have Origen's strong testimony, as is sup- 
posed, in favor of infant baptism. In his eighth 
Homily he is represented as saying, ** Infants also 
are by the usage of the church baptized." In hia 
Commentary on Romans, this language is attributed 
to him : '' The church had from the apostles a tradi- 
tion [or order] to give baptism even to infants.*' 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 67 

This is Dr. WalPs translation. He was very anxious 
to translate the Latin word traditio, order. His con- 
science, however, would not allow him to do so. 
He therefore put the word order in brackets. Lret it 
not be forgotten that the translation of these portions 
of Origen's Works, was made from Greek into Latin, 
by Rufinus, who ** altered or left out anything that 
he thought not orthodox." Who knows, therefore, 
who can ever know, whether Origen wrote what is 
here attributed to him? What alterations were 
made in his writings ? Such as Rufinus, in his 
orthodoxy, thought proper. What things were "left 
out?'' Only those that Rufinus thought ought to be 
left out ! Erasmus, a prodigy of learning in his day, 
was uncertain whether he **read Origen or Rufinus." 
But if Origen did say what Rufinus represents him 
as saying, what does it amount to? Absolutely 
nothing with those who recognize the word of God 
as the only rule of faith and practice. The *' usage 
of the church," and *'a tradition from the apostles" 
are referred to as authority for infant baptism. There 
is no appeal to the Holy Scriptures. Who but a 
Romanist is willing to practice infant baptism as a 
tradition, and not a divine ordinance ? Origen's 
testimony is valuable to a Papist — worthless to a 
Protestant. 

Leaving the *' uncertain" writings of Origen, Dr. 
Wall conducts us into the Council of Carthage, A. D. 
B53. This council was composed of sixty-six Bishops, 



68 THREE REASONS, 

or Pastors, and Cyprian presided over it. One of 
the questions submitted to its consideration was 
whether a child should be baptized before it was 
eight days old ? Fidus, who presented the question, 
was in the negative, and rightly too, if the law of cir- 
cumcision was to regulate the matter. The very fext 
that such a question was sent to the council, shows 
that infant baptism was comparatively a new thing. 
If it had been practiced from the days of the apostles, 
does not every sane man believe that the matter 
would have been settled before A. D. 253, whether 
infants should or should not be baptized before the 
eighth day ? The council decided against the delay 
of baptism to the eighth day, assigning this weighty 
reason : *' As far as in us hes, no soul, if possible, is 
to be lost.'' Here it will be seen that the necessity 
of baptism, in order to salvation, is recognized. In 
this supposed necessity, infant baptism doubtless had 
its origin. This will be clear when I present the 
testimony of the great Neander. This stupid council 
of Carthage attempted to justify infant baptism by 
reference to the fact that when the son of the Shuna- 
mite widow (mentioned in 2 Kings, chap, iv,) died, 
the prophet Elisha so stretched himself on the child 
as to apply his face to the child's face, his feet to the 
child's feet, etc. By this, said the council, ** spiritual 
equality is intimated" — that is, a child is spiritually 
equal to a grown person ! A conclusive reason for 
infant baptism, truly ! The members of this council 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 69 

were so ignorant of the very Scriptures to which they 
referred, that they seem not to have known that it is 
said, '' and when the child was grown,*' etc. This 
was said before the child's death and miraculous res- 
toration to life. The cause of infant baptism must be 
desperate when the decision of such a council is in- 
voked to sustain it. 

Dr. Wall refers to other ''christian fathers/' as 
they are termed, and quotes largely from Augustine, 
who lived in the latter part of the fourth and the 
beginning of the fifth century. He died A. D. 430. 
Baptists do not deny that infants were baptized from 
the days of Cyprian. They believe, however, that 
from the days of the Apostles till now, God has had 
a people in the world who have protested against in- 
fant baptism as a human tradition. They consider 
the woman mentioned in Revelations xii, the repre- 
sentative of the Church of Christ. She fled into the 
wilderness, etc. The corrupt organization which de- 
veloped the deformities and atrocities of the Romish 
hierarchy is not, in the estimation of Baptists, any 
part of the Christian Church. Ecclesiastical histori- 
ans, generally, use the term ''church," to denote 
that organization. And they say truly, the "church" 
practiced infant baptism. Augustine speaks of the 
whole church — ^^umversa» ecclesia'* — as favoring in- 
fg?nt baptism. No doubt what he called the " church" 
did. But was it the Church of Christ ? Baptists 
say it was not. Before I dismiss Augustine, it is 



70 TRREE REASONS, 

proper to say that he refers to infant baptism as an 
** apostoHc tradition/* ^^ Apostolica traditio," is the 
phrase he employs. He meant, doubtless, that it was 
handed down from the appstles by tradition, that in- 
fants were to be baptized. And this implies the 
silence of the New Testament on the subject. No 
one would say that it was handed down by tradition, 
that believers were to be baptized. Why ? Because 
the baptism of behevers is taught in the New Testa- 
ment, and hence tradition in regard to it is absolutely 
precluded. Not so in reference to infant baptism. 
Here there is room for tradition, because the Scrip- 
tures are silent. Romanists and Protestants believe 
that a thing authorized by tradition is not authorized 
by the word of God. Romanists, however, take the 
*' traditions of the church,'' in connection with 
the word of God, to constitute the rule of faith and 
practice, while Protestants professedly repudiate 
*' traditions," and yet indorse a most mischievous 
** tradition,'' in the baptism of infants. Let any 
sober-minded man say whether Augustine would 
have expressed himself as he has done if he had be- 
lieved that the New Testament authorized the bap- 
tism of infants. And nothing but New Testament 
authority will ever satisfy Baptists. It is the greatest 
folly to talk to them of tradition. 

Dr. Summers, in his late work on Baptism, repre- 
sents Augustine as saying, that the *' Catholic 
Church," and every *' sect" and *' schism" practice 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. tl 

infant baptism, and hold that ** baptized infants do 
obtain the remission of original sin, by the baptism 
of Christ/' There must be some mistake about this, 
because it not only conflicts with historical facts, but 
stultifies the Council of Mela, in Numidia, A. D. 416 
— a council over which Augustine presided, and 
which decreed as follows: ** Also, it is the pleasure of 
the bishops to order that whoever denieth that infants 
newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized, or 
saith that baptism is administered for the* remission of 
their own sins, but not on account of original sin, de- 
rived from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of 
regeneration, he accursed.'' Now, if the '* Catholic 
Church,'' with every ** sect" and ** schism" practiced 
infant baptism, against whom was the anathema of 
the Council of Mela fulminated? If no one denied 
that infants ought to be baptized, the Council decreed 
a superfluous nalediction, not more creditable to the 
intellect tnan to the hearts of its members. There 
were opposers of infant baptism. Hence, the curse 
denounced with so much bitterness, and carrying with 
it the influence of Augustine's mighty name. And 
here it may be said that the advocates of infant bap- 
tism have often evinced a persecuting spirit. It will 
never be known till the revelations of the last day, 
what multitudes have been put to death for denying 
the right of unconscious infants to the ordinance of 
baptism. Babylon! drunken with the blood of the 
saints and the martyrs of Jesus, a fearful doom 



72 THREE REASONS, 

awaits thee. During the dark ages, the spirit that 
prompted Augustine and his coadjutors to anathema- 
tize the opposers of infant baptism prevailed, and be- 
came intensely rancorous. Could the martyred 
Paulicians, Waldenses, and Albigenses rise from the 
dead, they would tell a tale that would send a thrill 
of horror through the heart of humanity. But I 
must not enlarge. 

It has been intimated that infant baptism had its 
origin in the supposed necessity of baptism to salva- 
tion, and I have promised to present the testimony of 
the celebrated Neander on this point. He says, 
**That not till so late a period as (at least certainly 
not earlier than) Irenaeus, a trace of infant baptism 
appears, and that it first became recognized as an 
apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, 
is evidence rather against than for the admission of 
its apostolic origin ; especially since, in the spirit of 
the age when Christianity appeared, there were 
many elements which must have been favorable to 
the introduction of infant baptism, — the same ele- 
ments from which proceeded the notion of the magical 
effects of outward baptism, the notion of its absolute 
necessity for salvation, the notion which gave rise to the 
mythus that the apostles baptized the Old Testament 
saints in Hades. How very much must infant bap- 
tism have corresponded with such a tendency, if it 
had been favored by tradition !''* 

* Planting and Training of the Church, p. 102. 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 3 

Dr. Wall, referring to the ''ancient Fathers," 
sa3^s : ''They differed concerning the future state of 
infants dying unbaptized : but all agreed that they 
missed of Heaven.''* 

In view of this testimony of two distinguished 
Pedobaptists, who does not see that infant baptism 
originated from its supposed inseparable relation to 
salvation ? A fundamental misconception of the 
truth of the gospel gave it birth, while misapprehen- 
sion of the teachings of the New Testament prolongs 
its disastrous existence. The " Historical Argu- 
ment" for infant baptism affords very little " aid and 
comfort" to Pedobaptists. But suppose it was a 
thousand times stronger. Suppose every writer from 
the death of the last apostle had expressed himself 
in favor of it; even then it would be nothing less 
than an act of will-worship, while the Scriptures are 
silent in reference to it. The perplexing question, 
" Who hath required this at your hands ?" ought to 
confound its advocates. " The Bible, the Bible 
alone," said Chillmgworth, "is the religion of Pro- 
testants." Arguments from antiquity, to be avail- 
able, must penetrate the antiquity of the apostolic 
age, and rest on the teachings of the New Testa- 
ment. AH other arguments are worthless. 

before dismissing the subject of infant baptism, I 
must present a few of the many objections to it. 

* History of Infant Baptism, part 2, chap. 6. 
7 



74 THREE REASONS, 

1 . A decided objection to it is that its advocates caU' 
not agree why it should be practiced. 

How conflicting, how antagonistic their views ! 
Roman CathoHcs baptize* infants in order to their 
salvation. They consider baptism essential to the 
salvation of adults and infants. They have some- 
times shown the sincerity of their belief by attempt- 
ing to baptize children before they were born. If 
Episcopalians believe their ** Prayer Book," they 
'baptize infants to make them children of God by re- 
generation. Calvin, as may be seen in his ** Life, by 
Henry," vol. 1, pp. 82, 83, maintains that infants 
are capable of exercising faith, and that their bap- 
tism is an exemplification of believers' baptism. This 
seems also to have been Luther's opinion. Wesley, 
in his *' Treatise on Baptism," says : ** If infants are 
guilty of original sin, they are proper subjects of 
baptism : seeing, in the ordinary way, that they can- 
not be saved, unless this be washed away in bap- 
tism." The ''Directory" of the Westminster As- 
sembly, places the right of the infants of believers to 
baptism, on the ground that they are *' federally 
holy.'^ The opinion most generally entertained 
among Pedobaptists, probably is, that infants should 
be baptized to bring them into the church. But Dr. 
Miller insists that the children of professing Chris- 
tians are born members of the church, and are bap- 
tized because they are members. And Dr. Sum- 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 75 

mers derives the right of infants to baptism from 
** their personal connection with the second Adam." 
These are a specimen of the reasons urged in favor 
of infant baptism. How contradictory ! How an- 
tagonistic ! It seems that infants are baptized that 
they may be saved — that they may be regenerated — 
because they have faith — because their parents are 
believers — because they are involved in original 
sin — and because they are holy — because they ought 
to be brought into the church — and because they are 
in the church by yirtue of their birth — and because 
of their ^' personal connection " with Christ, in con- 
sequence of his assumption of human nature ! It 
would certainly be well for the various tribes of Pe- 
dobaptists to call a general council, and try and de- 
cide why infants should be baptized. The reasons 
in favor of the practice are, at present, so contradic- 
tory and so destructive of one another that it must 
involve the advocates of the system in great per- 
plexity. Many, though, would object to such a 
council because, for obvious reasons, the Pope of 
Rome should preside over it, and others would ob- 
ject because it would probably be in session as long as 
the council of Trent. Still, if one good reason could 
be furnished for infant baptism, by the united wis- 
dom of Catholics and Protestants, it would be more 
satisfactory than all the reasons which are now 
urged. 



76 THREE REASONS, 

2. A second objection to in/ant baptism is that it A 
tendency is to unite the church and the world. 

Jesus Christ evidently designed the church to be 
the light of the world. His followers are not of the 
world, but are chosen out of the world. If any- 
thing in the New Testament is plain, it is plain that 
the Lord Jesus intended that there should be a dis- 
tinct line of demarkation between the church and the 
world. I need not argue a point so clear. Now the 
tendency of infant baptism is to unite the church and 
the world, and obliterate the line of demarkation 
which the Savior has established. Let the principles 
of Pedobaptism universally prevail, and one of three 
things will inevitably follow. Either there will be no 
church — or there will be no world — or there will be 
a worldly church. The universal prevalence of Pe- 
dobaptist sentiments would bring all *'born of the 
flesh" into the church. To he generated, not regen- 
erated, would-be the qualification for membership. 
The unregenerate members would be in a large ma- 
jority. The world would absorb the church, or, to 
say the least, there would be an intensely worldly 
church. Is this not true of the national churches of 
Europe ? The time has been, whatever may be the 
case now, when in England, ** partaking of the 
Lord's Supper *' was a qualification for holding the 
civil and military offices of the kingdom. Thus a 
premium was oflfered for hypocrisy. In Germany, 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 7*7 

it is said, that women cannot be licensed as prosti- 
tutes unless they are members of the State Church, 
while the tax they pay goes into the treasury from 
which the clergy draw their salaries !* In the 
United States of America there are so many coun- 
teracting influences that infant baptism cannot fully 
develop its tendency to unite the church and the 
world. Indeed, in some respects, Pedobaptists 
practically repudiate their own principles. They 
do not treat their "baptized children" as church- 
members. If they did, there would truly be a 
deplorable state of things. 

3. Another objection to infant baptism is, that U 
cherishes in ^^ baptized children^' the delusive belief 
that they are better than others — that their salvation is 
more hopeful. S 

In many instances, it is to be feared, they are led 
to consider themselves in a saved state. The chil- 
dren of Romanists must so regard themselves, if 
they attribute to baptism the efficacy ascribed to it 
by the Papal hierarchy. If the children of Episco- 
palians believe the *' Book of Common Prayer,'' they 
must grow up under the false persuasion that in bap- 
tism they *'were made members of Christ, children 
of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of Heaven." 
If the children of Methodists believe the '* Disci- 
pline," and that the prayer offered at their baptism 

* See Dr Maclay's Letter to Dr. Aydelotte. 

7*- 



78 TPIREE REASONS, 

was heard, they must recognize themselves as bap- 
tized not only *'with water/' but '*with the Holy 
Ghost.'' If the children of Presbyterians believe 
the ''Westminster Confe'ssion '' and *' Directorv," 
they look upon themselves as ''federally holy" — 
*Mn covenant with God'* — and that the "covenant 
is sealed" by their baptism. Will not all these 
classes of children consider themselves better than 
others ? Will they not, under the teaching they re- 
ceive, view other children as consigned to the "un- 
covenanted mercies of God," while they occupy a 
high vantage ground? And will not their delusive 
belief present a serious obstacle in the way of their 
salvation? I would not needlessly give offense, but 
it does appear to me that there is no rational proba- 
bihty of the salvation of Pedobaptist children, unless 
they disbelieve the dogmas inculcated in their bap- 
tism. Will the children of Romanists ever be saved 
while they regard their baptism as having placed them 
in a state of salvation ? Will the children of Epis- 
copalians become the "children of God" while they 
entertain the absurd notion that they were made his 
children by baptism ? Will the children of Method- 
ists be regenerated while they ignorantly imagine 
that they have been baptized "with the Holy 
Ghost ?" Will the children of Presbyterians re- 
pent — acknowledge their guilt and condemnation as 
sinners before God — while they lay the pernicious, 
though " flattering unction to their souls," that they 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. • 79 

are '* federally holy/' and *'in covenant with God?" 
Alas for the children of Pedobaptists ! I see not 
how their salvation comes within the limits of possi- 
bility or probability, until they consider the teach- 
ings of their ** Prayer Books," ** Disciplines "and 
'* Confessions of Faith," on the subject of baptism, 
as absolutely false. They must take the first step in 
the pursuit of salvation, by denying the truth of what 
they have been taught concerning their baptism. It 
will be asked, Are not thousands of the children ol 
Pedobaptists converted to God ? I concede it. But 
why is it so ? One prominent reason, doubtless is, 
that on the part of their ministers and parents, there 
is a practical repudiation of their baptismal theories. 
The ** baptized children," whatever the baptismal 
formulas may say, are taught that they are sinners, 
unregenerate, lost, condemned, and exposed to the 
wrath of God, for the very reason that they are not 
''in covenant " with him. Thanks be to God, that the 
preaching and teaching of Pedobaptists do not accord 
with their ''Confessions of Faith," so far as the sub- 
jeei of infant baptism is concerned. The dis- 
crepancy is vital to the welfare of their offspring. 

4. A fourth objection to infant baptism is that it in- 
terferes with the independent action of the minds of those 
baptized in regard to baptism^ and in numberless instances 
prevents baptism on a profession of faith in Christ. 

Suppose, when "baptized children" grow up to be 
men and women, they are annoyed with doubts, as is 



80 THREE REASONS, 

« 

often the case, in reference to the vahdity of their 
baptism. They feel at once that they cannot enter- 
tain these doubts without virtually calling in question 
the propriety of what their parents had done for 
them in their infancy. Filial respect and reverence 
present almost insuperable barriers in the wav of au 
impartial investigation of the subject. The question 
comes up, *' Shall we reflect on the wisdom of our 
parents, by declaring their act null and void?'' If 
the parents are dead and gone to heaven, the diffi- 
culty is often still greater. The question then as- 
sumes this form: *' Shall we repudiate what our now 
glorified parents did for us when they ' dedicated us 
to God' in our infancy? **It often requires a great 
struggle before the repudiation is resolved on. The 
man is not to be reasoned with who will deny that 
infant baptism interferes with the independent, un- 
oiased action of the mind in reference to baptism. 
And then, how many would now be baptized on a 
profession of faith in Christ, were it not for their 
infant baptism! They hesitate to say that the ''in- 
fantile rite " was worthless. They know that great 
and good men have practiced infant baptism. Their 
minds are perplexed. They wish, it had so happened 
that they had not been baptized in infancy. Still the 
sprinkling of the baptismal (!) waters upon them in 
babyhood now prevents an intelhgent immersion 
into Christ upon a profession of faith in his name. Is 
it not an objection to infant baptism that it prevents 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 81 

SO many from obeying Christ, and even fosters a 
spirit of disobedience ? 

5. The tendency of infant baptism is to supplant 
believers^ baptism^ and banish it from the vyorld. 

This is the last objection I shall urge, not because 
there are not many other objections, but because 
the limits I have prescribed to myself forbid their 
presentation. It is admitted on all hands that the 
New Testament enjoins the baptism of believers. 
The universality of the admission precludes the 
necessity of proof. The baptism of believers is a 
divine ordinance. Is it reasonable to suppose that 
two divine ordinances antagonize with each other? 
Pedobaptists say infant baptism is a divine ordinance, 
and they are slow to allow its antagonism with the 
baptism of believers. But the antagonism is direct, 
positive. The tendency, the inevitable tendency of 
infant baptism, is to supplant the baptism of believers. 
A supposition -will make this plain : Let it be sup- 
posed, then, that the principles of Pedobaptists pre- 
vail throughout the world. All parents come into 
the church, and have their children '* dedicated to 
God in baptism.'' If this supposition were realized, 
where would believers' baptism be? It would, in one 
generation, be banished from the world. An ordi- 
nance established by Christ, to be observed to the 
end of time, would be abolished. There would be 
no gospel baptism on earth. One of the institutions 
of the Head of the church would not be allowed a 



8^ THREE REASONS 

place in the world which he made, and in which he 
labored, toiled, suffered, and died ! How horrible is 
this ! A human tradition arraying itself in deadly- 
hostility to an ordinance ot Heaven, and attempting, 
with all the energy of desperation, to destroy it, and 
leave no memorial of its existence on the face of the 
globe ! If there were no other objection to infant 
baptism this is amply sufficient to induce all who love 
the Savior, and revere his authority, to wage against 
it a war of extermination. 



EEASON SECOND. 
I AM A Baptist because Baptists consider the 

IMMERSION IN WATER, OF A BELIEVER, ESSENTIAL TO 
BAPTISM — SO ESSENTIAL THAT THERE IS NO BAPTISM 
WITHOUT IT. 

While the term baptize does not decide who are to 
be baptized, it indicates the action to be performed. 
That action Baptists say, with strongest emphasis, is 
immersion. In maintaining their position, they con- 
fidently refer to the following facts : 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 83 

1 . Greek lexicons give, immerse, dip or plunge, as the 
primary and ordinary meaning of bajotizo. 

Here it is proper to state that hapjtizo and haptlsrna 
are, in King James's version of the Scriptures, angli- 
cized, but not translated. This is invariably true of 
the latter term, and it is true of the former whenever 
the ordinance of baptism is referred to. Baptismob 
is used four times. In three instances it has no 
reference to the ordinance of baptism, and is trans- 
lated *' washing," which washing was evidently the 
result of immersion. In the other instance it is not 
translated, but anglicized. Bapto is employed in the 
Greek New Testament three times, and emhapto three 
times. Both are translated **dip'' in the common 
version. There is no more difference in their mean 
ing than there is between the term '*dip" and the 
phrase " dip in.'' These verbs are never used in 
connection with baptism as a religious ordinance. 
Baptizo is the verb invariably employed. I have 
alluded to baptizo and baptisma as anglicized words. 
By this it is only meant that their termination is made 
to correspond with the termination of English words. 
In baptizo the final letter is changed into e, and in 
baptisma the last letter is dropped altogether. To 
make this matter of anglicism perfectly plain, it is 
only necessary to say, that if rantizo had been sub- 
jected to the same treatment by the King's trans- 
lators which baptizo received at their hands, we would 
have rantize, in the New Testament, wherever we now 



84 THREE REASONS, 

have sprinkle. King James virtually forbade the 
translation of baptize and baptism. This has been 
often denied, but it is susceptible of conclusive proof. 
The King's third instruction to his translators reads 
thus : *' The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as 
the word church not to be translated congregation." 
It is absurd to say that this rule had exclusive refer- 
ence to the term ** church;'' for this term is maiii- 
festly given as a specimen of '*old ecclesiastic words." 
And why should pluraKty of idea be conveyed by 
the phrase *' ecclesiastical words,'" if the rule had 
respect to only one word? The question, then, in 
dispute is : Are baptism and baptize *' old ecclesias- 
tical words?" They certainly were words when the 
Bible was translated, or they would not be found in 
it. They had been used by church historians, and 
by writers on ecclesiastical law, and were, therefore, 
ecclesiastical. And th6y had been in use a long time, 
and were consequently old. They were ** old eccle- 
siastical words." Such words the King commanded 
*' to be kept" — **not translated." It is worthy of 
remark, too, that the Bishop of London, at the King's 
instance, wrote to the translators, reminding them 
that his Majesty ** wished his third smd fourth rule 
to be specially observed."* This circumstance must 
have called special attention to the rule under con- 
sideration. In view of these facts, it may surely be 

* Lewis's History of Translations, page 319, 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 85 

said that the translators knew what were **old eccle- 
siastical words." Let their testimony, then, be ad- 
duced. In their ''Preface to the Reader/' they say 
that they had, ''on the one side, avoided the scru- 
pulosity of the Puritans, who left the old ecclesiasti- 
cal words, and betook them to other, as when they 
put washing for baptism, and congregation for church; 
and on the other hand had shunned the obscurity of 
the Papists,'' etc. Is not this enough? Here there 
is not only a contemporaneous admission that " 6a/>- 
tisjn'' was included in the old ecclesiastical words, 
but this admission is made by the translators them- 
selves — made most cheerfully — for it was made in 
condemnation of the Puritans, and in commendation 
of themselves. 

My position is certainly established by the fore- 
going considerations ; but to fortify it, so that it may 
forever defy the assaults of polemic ingenuity and 
wrath, reference may be made to the King's fourth 
rule. It reads thus: "When any word hath divers 
significations, that to be kept which hath been most 
commonly used by the most eminent Fathers, being 
agreeable to the propriety of the place and the anal- 
ogy of faith." Suppose I were to admit, for argu- 
ment's sake, what many Pedobaptists contend for, 
tkat haptizo has divers significations — every man of 
intelligence knows that from the days of the apostles 
to the reign of King James, immerse was its com- 
monly received meaning. Was not immersion ordi- 
8 



86 THREE REASONS, 

narily practiced for thirteen hundred years? Dr 
"Whitb3% Dr. Wall, Professor Stvvart, and I kno^ 
not how many other Pedobaptists of distinction, 
make this concession. Fai* be it from me to say that 
haptizo is a word of many significations; but even if 
it were, the King's translators, if they had rendered 
it at all, would have been compelled by the fourth rule 
to translate it immerse ; for it was most commonly 
used in this sense by the most eminent Fathers. But 
it will be perceived that the King's third rule renders 
inoperative his fourth, so far as old ecclesiastical 
words are concerned. Whether such words have 
one meaning, or a thousand meanings, they are '*to 
be kept — not translated." The translators were not 
at liberty to refer to the signification immemorially 
attached by the Greeks to hoptizo — a signification which 
received the cordial indorsement of "• the most eminent 
Fathers.'' They might have examined the indorse- 
ment if tlie royal decree had not said, ''hitherto, hut 
no farther — the old ecclesiastical words to be kept." 
The fact that baptizo is an anglicized, and not a 
translated word, makes an appeal to Greek lexicons 
necessary in ascertaining its meaning. Lexicons 
indeed do not constitute the ultimate authority, but 
I first avail myself of their testimony. I have ma3e 
it a point to examine all the lexicons I have seen 
(and they have been many) in reference to the sig- 
nification of baptizo. There is a remarkable unanim- 
ity among them in representing immerse, or its equiv 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. S^ 

alent, as the primary and ordinary meaning of the 
word. According to lexicographers, it is a word of 
definite import, as much so as any other. It is as 
specific as rantizOy Rud it might be argued just as 
plausibly that rantizo means to immerse, as that hap- 
tizo means to sprinkle. I have seen no lexicon that 
gives sprinkle as a meaning of haptizo, and but one 
that makes *' to pour upon " one of its significations. 
In Liddell & Scott's Greek and English Lexicon, 
edited by Mr. Drisler of New York, ** with correc- 
tions and additions," *' to pour upon " is given as the 
seventh meaning of haptizo. It is a significant fact, 
however, that while passages in classic Greek authors 
are referred to as illustrative of the ordinary meaning 
of the word, there is no mention of any passage that 
sustains the unscholarly definition, '' to pour upon." 
It is worthy of special remark, that the second 
English edition of Liddell & Scott does not contain, 
under the terra haptizo, the phrase " to pour upon." 
It seems that after issuing their first edition, they were 
led to re-examine the subject, which re-examination 
caused them, in their second edition, to leave out the 
definition ** to pour upon." This is an important 
f^t, of which Baptists should diligently avail them- 
selves. It has been well said : *' When it is remem- 
bered that the definition ' pour upon ' was assigned 
to * baptizo,' in the first English edition, on the au- 
thority of Francis Passon, whose German work forms 
the basis of that of Liddell & Scott — this chancre in 



88 THREE REASONS 

the second English edition, is an admission as grati 
fying to Baptists, as it is unwelcome to their oppon- 
ents. Messrs. Liddell & Scott, who certainly cannot 
be charged with a leaning to Baptist sentiments, have 
deliberately, after due examination, withdrawn their 
authority, in favor of * pour upon,' as a signification 
of the verb * baptizo,' and now define the word 
just as Baptist scholars have defined it, after a 
careful study of the passages in which it occurs in 
the Greek authors. Of such a concession. Baptists 
know well how to take advantage." I now repeat, 
that there is among Greek Lexicons a perfect con- 
currence in assigning immerse or its equivalent 
as the ordinary meaning of haptizo. This ought 
to settle the baptismal controversy. For what 
says Blackstone, who is almost the idol of the 
legal p ofession ? *' Words are generally to be 
understood in their usual and most known signi- 
fication ; not so much regarding the propriety of 
grammar, as their general and iiopular use^ * 
Immerse was the " usual and most known signi- 
fication '' of haptizo^ among the Greeks. It was 
its '* general and popular use," as we shall see in 
the proper place. . 

To return to the argument derived from lexicons : 
All English Dictionaries give immerse or its equiv- 
alent as the ordinary meaning of dip. It would, 



Chitty's Blackstone, Vol. I, page 59 



WHY 1 AM A BAPTIST. 89 

therefore, be very unreasonable to deny that dip ordi- 
narily means to immerse. Greek lexicons give im- 
merse as the ordinary meaning of haptizo. Is it not, 
then, just as unreasonable to deny that haptizo ordi- 
narily means immerse as it would be to deny that dip 
has this signification? Indeed, there is no argument 
employed by Pedobaptists to divest haptizo of its usual 
meaning, which may not be as plausibly employed to 
divest dip of its ordinary import. The truth is, 
though dip is a definite and specific term, haptizo is 
more so. We speak of '*the dip of the magnetic 
needle," and ''the dip of a stratum, in geology." 
Pope speaks of ^'dipping into a volume of history." 
And in some places there is a practice which the 
ladies call '* dipping snufip." If Pedobaptists could 
find haptizo used in such connections there would be 
rejoicing from Dan to Beersheba. They would aim 
to extract sprinkle, pour, and I know not what else, 
from such uses of the word. The man who would 
attempt to prove that dip means sprinkle and pour, 
would be laughed at ; but he could make a more 
plausible and respectable eftbrt in adducing his proof 
than if he were to attempt to prove the same thing 
in reference to haptizo. Let us see : Such a man 
might say, Johnson and Webster, in their large Dic- 
tionaries, give ''moisten" and "wet," as meanings 
of dip, and refer to Milton as authority, who uses the 
language which follows: "A cold shuddering dew 
dips me all o'er." 
8* 



90 TRREE REASONS, 

Talking with himself, such a reasoner might say, 
'*It is a fixed fact that dip means to ' moisten' and 
'wet.' Who will dispute what Johnson and Webster 
say, sustained, as they are, 'by the * Prince of British 
poets ?' Very well. Dip means to moisten and wet. 
Everybody knows that a thing can be moistened or 
made wet by having water poured or sprinkled on 
it? Therefore dip means to pour and sprinkle!!" 
Now I affirm that this argument is more plausible 
than any I ever heard from a Pedobaptist minister to 
prove that baptizo means pour and sprinkle. And 
yet who does not see that it is replete with sophistry? 
It assumes as true the obvious fallacy, that if a pro- 
cess can be accomplished in two different ways, the 
two verbs employed to denote those two ways mean 
the same thing. An object may be moistened by 
being dipped in water, but moisten and dip are not 
synonymous. The same object may be moistened by 
having water sprinkled or poured upon it, but neither 
moisten and sprinkle, nor moisten and pour, are 
identical in import. And though the moistening may 
result from the dipping, sprinkling, or pouring, the 
three acts are clearly distinguishable, and definite 
terms are used to express tiiem. It is proper to say 
of the Greek Lexicons to which I have referred, tliat 
they were all made by men who had no partialities 
for Baptists. A regard- for truth, therefore, and no 
desire to give currency to the practice of immersion, 
elicited from them the definition they have given of 






WHY I AM A bAPTIST. 91 

baptlzo. Baptists may well felicitate themselves that 
their opponents bear strong testimony in their favor; 
for I proceed to say, 

2. That not only Lexicographers, hut distinguished 
Pedobaptist scholars and theologians, admit that bap- 
tizo means to immerse. 

Here I shall probably be told that it is unfair to 
take advantage of Pedobaptist concessions. I insist 
that there is nothing unfair in such a course. No 
one can maintain that there is without impHcating the 
Apostle Paul ; for in his triumphant argument on 
**Mars Hill,'' he availed himself of the declaration 
of certain Greek poets — recognized the truth of the 
declaration, but did not attempt to prove it. I shall 
aim to do nothing that is unjustified by the example 
of Paul. Pedobaptist concessions are of great value; 
for it may be said, in the language of another : *' This 
testimony of theirs, to me, is worth a thousand others; 
seeing it comes from such as, in my opinion, are evi- 
dently interested to speak quite otherwise.'' I ask the 
reader's earnest attention to the followino- extracts : 

I begin with John Calvin, a learned Presbyterian, 
who lived three hundred years ago. He was very 
decided in his opposition to Baptists, or '' Anahap- 
lists,*' as he contemptuously called them. He wrote 
in Latin, and I avail myself of Pedobaptist trans- 
lations of the orio'inal. 

In his Institutes, Book IV, chapter 15, paragraph 
19, he expresses himself thus: (I adopt Professor 



92 THREE REASONS, 

Stuart's translation:) ''It is of no consequence at all 
(minimum refert) whether the person baptized is 
totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled 
by an allusion of water. ^This should be a matter 
of choice to the churches in different regions; although 
the word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of 
immersion was practiced by the ancient church." 
This translation might have been made stronger. 
Professor S. might have said, **the word baptize" 
itself, or the very ''word baptize," etc.; for the origi- 
nal is ''ipsum haptizandi verbum,'^ etc. So, also, as 
Calvin uses the word ''constat'' as an impersonal 
verb, the translation should be, "it is evident," or 
"certain that the rite of immersion," etc. 

Dr. George Campbell, a distinguished Presby- 
terian of Scotland, in his " Notes " on Matthew, iii, 
2, says, "The word baptizein'' (infinitive mode, 
present tense, of baptizo,) "both in sacred authors, 
and in classical, signifies, to dip, to plunge, to im- 
merse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of 
the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dying 
cloth, which was by immersion. It is always con- 
strued suitably to this meaning." 

In his " Lectures on Systematic Theology and 
Pulpit Eloquence," Lecture x, he expresses himself 
thus : "Another error in disputation, which is by far 
too common, is, when one will admit nothing in the 
plea or arguments of an adversary to be of the 
smallest weight. ******. I have heard a 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 93 

disputant of this stamp, in defiance of etymology and 
use, maintain that the word rendered in the New 
Testament baptize^ means more properly to sprinkle 
than to plunge, and, in defiance of all antiquity, that 
the former method was the earliest, and for many 
centuries, the most general practice in baptizing. 
One who argues in this manner, never fails, with 
persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would 
defend ; and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold 
assertions generally succeed, as well as arguments, 
sometimes better ; yet a candid mind will disdain to 
take the help of a falsehood, even in support of the 
truth." 

Witsius, *' Professor of Divinity in the Univer- 
sities of Franeker, Utrecht, and Ley den," says in his 
work on the ** Covenants," '* It cannot be denied, 
but the native signification of the words, baptein and 
baptizein, is to plunge or dip.'' Chapter on Baptism. 

Professor Stuart, so long an ornament of the An- 
dover Seminary, Massachusetts, in his work on the 
*'Mode of Baptism," says on page 14, '' Bapto and 
baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge, into any- 
thing liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any 
note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, 
then, need not necessarily be protracted ; but for the 
sake of ample confirmation, I must beg the reader's 
patience, while I lay before him, as briefly as may 
be, the results of an investigation, which seems to 
leave no room for doubt." It will be seen that Pro- 



^4 THREE REASONS, 

fessor Stuart fully sustains what has been said of 
Greek Lexicons. 

I now quote from the greatest man, as I think, 
that ever belonged to the Presbyterian denomination. 
No one will question his scholarship. I refer to Dr. 
Chalmers. In his Lectures on Romans, he says, 
Lecture xxx, on chap, vi, 3 — 7: "The original 
meaning of the word baptism, is immersion, and 
though we regard it as a point of indiflPerency, 
whether the ordinance so named be performed in 
this way or by sprinkling — yet we doubt not, that 
the prevalent style of the administration in the 
apostle's days, was by an actual submerging of the 
whole body under water. We advert to this, for the 
purpose of throwing light on the analogy that is in- 
stituted in these verses. Jesus Christ, by death, 
underwent this sort of baptism — even immersion 
imder the surface of the ground, whence he soon 
emerged again by his resurrection. We, by being 
baptized into his death, are conceived to have made 
a similar translation.'' 

But why proceed farther with the testimony of 
distino-uished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians ? 
What I have adduced is surely sufficient. Tliese 
witnesses testify that haptizo means to immerse ; nor 
do tliey say tliat it means to sprinkle and pour. True 
it is, that Calvin considered it a matter of '' no con- 
sequence "as to immersion or sprinkling, and Chal- 
mers regarded it a *' point of indifferency ;" but 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 9il 

they are both clear as to what the word haj^tizc 
means. This is all I want — their testimony as to the 
meaning of the word. Their opinion as to the 
admissibility of sprinkling, I reject; for it is utterly 
gratuitous and absurd, unless baptizo means to 
sprinkle. This they did not say, and could not say. 
I hope it will be observed that I make a distinction 
between a fact and an opinion. He who, acquainted 
with the usus loquendi of a term, testifies that it 
means a certain thing, bears witness to 2k fact: but 
if he says it is not important to adhere to the mean- 
ing established by the usus loquendi, he expresses an 
opinion. 

It may be asked why those Pedobaptist scholars 
who have conceded that haptizo means to immerse, 
have not become practical immersionists ? This is a 
question difficult to answer. That they ought to 
have shown their faith by their works, does not ad- 
mit a doubt. Some, perhaps, have failed to do so, on 
account of the strength of early predilections — others 
have not felt willing to disturb their denominational 
relations — and others still have had a horror of the 
charge of fickleness. Probably, however, the greater 
number, like Professor Stuart, have persuaded them- 
selves that as the Christian dispensation is eminently 
spiritual, provided the heart is right, it is a matter of 
but little moment as to a particular observance of 
*' external rites." Such persons seem to forget that 
the way to show that the heart is right with God, is 



96 TliliEE ilEASONS, 

to do the very thing he has commanded. The lea^ 
sons suggested for the failure of those Pedobaptista 
who make such concessions as have been referred to, 
to do their duty, are, I, acknowledge, altogether un- 
satisfactory. I cannot give satisfactory reasons: I 
cannot perform impossibilities. I am glad it is not 
incumbent on me to present adequate reasons. Those 
who admit that Jesus Christ commanded his disciples 
to be immersed, and, at the same time, array them- 
selves in practical opposition to immersion, are ac- 
countable to him. 

3. The classical usage of baptizo establishes the posi- 
tion of Baptists. 

I have said that Lexicons are not the ultimate au- 
thority in settling the meaning of words. The truth 
of this remark can be readily seen. Lexicographers 
are necessarily dependent on the sense in which 
words are used, to ascertain their meaning. But it 
is not impossible for them to mistake that sense. If 
they do, there is an appeal from their definitions to 
the usus loquendij which is the ultimate authority. 
I shall now show how classic Greek authors used the 
svord baptizo — not that I am complaining of the 
Lexicons — but that I may show that the usage of the 
word fully justifies the Lexicons in giving immerse, 
or its equivalent, as its ordinary meaning. It is 
pleasant to go back to the ultimate authority. 

Few men have ever examined the classic import 
of baptizo, so unweariedly, and so extensively, as the 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 97 

late Dr. Carson ; but as he was a Baptist, I decline 
availing myself of the results of 1ms investigations. 
For obvious reasons, I prefer that Pedobaptists shall 
say what is the classic meaning of baptizo. I quote 
from Professor Stuart's work on the *' Mode of Bap- 
tism.'' He makes extracts from the following Greek 
authors : 

Pindar, who was born five hundred and twenty 
years before Christ, says, ^'As when a net is cast into 
the sea, the cork swims above, so am I unplunged 
(abaptistos) ; on which the Greek scholiast, in com- 
menting, says : As the cork, ou dunel, does not sink, 
so I am abaptistos, unplunged, not immersed. The 
cork remains abaptistos, and swims on the surface of 
the sea, being of a nature which is abaptistos ; in like 
manner I am abaptistos,'''' etc. Pindar was describing 
the utter incompetency of his enemies to plunge him 
into ruin. It is only necessary to say to the English 
scholar, that the letter a, (in Greek, Alpha,) prefixed 
in the foregoing extract to baptistos, conveys a nega- 
tive idea. Abaptistos, therefore, means unplunged^ 
undipped, or unimmersed. Unsprinkled or unpjoured 
is perfectly out of the question. 

Heraclides Ponticus, who lived about three hun- 
dred and thirty-five years before the Christian era, 
says, '* When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the 
fire, and plunged in the water, (udati baptizetai,) the 
heaty being quenched by the peculiar nature of the water ^ 



9 



98 THREE REASONS, 

ceases.^* Baptizo certainly signifies immerse, in this 
passage. 

Plutarch, who died about A. D. 140, refers to a 
Roman General '' dipping (baptisas) his kand into 
hlood,'' etc. Again he says, ** Plunge (baptison) 
yourself into the sea,'' And again, *' Then plunging 
(baptizbn) himself into the Lake Copias,'' etc. 

LuciAN, who died A. D. 180, ** represents Timon, 
the man-hater, as saying : If a winter's flood should 
carry away any one, and he, stretching out his hands , 
should beg for help, I would press down the head of 
such an one when sinking, (baptizonta,) so that he 
could not rise up again." 

Hippocrates, who lived about 430 years before 
Christ, says, '* Shall I not laugh at the man who sinks 
(baptisonta) his ship by overloading it, and then com- 
plains of the sea for ingulfing it with its cargo P' 

Strabo, the celebrated geographer, who died A. 
D. 25, a very short time before ^John the Baptist be- 
gan to preach in the wilderness of Judea, ** speaking 
of a lake near Agrigentum, says : Things that else- 
where cannot float, do not sink (mee baptizesthai) in 
the water of this lake, but swim in the manner of 
wood." Again: '' If one shoots an arrow into the 
channel, [of a certain rivulet in Cappadocia,] the 
force of the water resists it so w,uch, that it will 
scarcely plunge in (^baptizesthai)." Again: ''They 
[the soldiers] marched a whole day through the water , 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 99 

PLUNGED IN [baptizomenbn) up to the waists Once 
more: ''The bitumen floats on the top [of the Lake 
Sirbon] because of the nature of the water y which ad- 
mits of no diving, nor can any one who enters it^ 
PLUNGE IN, (^baptizesthaiy) but is borne up,"^ 

JosEPHus, who died A. D. 93, aged fifty-six, and 
was, therefore, cotemporary with the Apostles, 
^* speaking of the ship in which Jonah was, says, 
mellontos baptizesthai too skaphous, the ship being about 
to sink'' He also uses the expression, '* Our ship 
being immersed or sinking (baptisthentos) in the midst 
of the Adriatic.'^ Referring to the youth Aristobu- 
lus, who was drowned by order of Herod, he says: 
** The boy was sent to Jericho, and there, agreeably 
to command, being immersed in a pond, (baptizome- 
aos en kolumbethra,) he perished.'' Again: ''As 
they [the sailors] swam away from a sinking ship 
(baptizomenees neos).'' Once more: "The wave be- 
ing raised verg high, overwhelmed or immerged 
them (ebapiise). 

Aristotle, who died 332 years before the Chris- 
tian era, " speaks of a saying among the Phenicians, 
that there were certain places, beyond the pillars of 
Hercules, which, when it is ebb-tide, are not over- 
flowed (mee bajjtizesthai) . 

DiODORUs SicuLus says : '* Most of the land ani- 
mals that are intercepted by the river [Nile] perish, 
being OVERWHELMED (6a2^^es^?n(?wa}." Again: *'The 



100 THREE REASONS, 

river, borne along by a naore violent current, over- 
whelmed [ebaptlze) many." 

Plutarch ** speaks of Galba, as ophleemasi behap- 
tismenon, overwhelmed with debts. He also uses 
the expression tipo toon pragmatoon baptizomenous ^ 
overwhelmed with business.'' 

The reader, by referring to Stuart, on the *'Mode 
of Baptism," pp. 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, can test the 
accuracy of these quotations from that work. It 
will be seen that I have used the Roman instead of 
the Greek letters. I have done this for the satisfac- 
tion of a large majority of those who will peruse 
these pages. 

It will be seen that immerse is the classical mean- 
ing of baptizo. In all the preceding quotations, it 
might be employed with propriety. A '' sinking 
shipy'' for example, is a ship about to be immersed. 
Nor is it any abuse of language to say that places 
*' not overflowed," are not immersed. As to being 
immersed in business, with cares, with debts, etc., 
the}^ are common forms of expression. I solicit 
special attention to the fact, that of the Greek au- 
thors referred to, some lived before the coming of 
Christ — some during the apostolic age — and some 
at a period subsequent to that age. 

Seven hundred years intervened between the birth 
of Pindar and the death of Lucian. During those 
seven centuries, usage shows that baptizo meant to 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 101 

immerse. Most of the classic Greek writers lived 
before baptism was instituted, and, consequently, 
knew nothing of immersion, as a religious ordinance. 
Those who lived after this institation cared nothing 
fof it. There was no controversy as to the meaning 
of haptizo, during the classic period of Grecian his- 
tory. There was no motive, therefore, that could sc 
operate on Greek writers as to induce them to use 
the word in any but its authorized sense. That sense 
was most obviously to immerse. Even Dr. Edward 
Beecher, though perfectly infatuated with the notion 
that baptize, **in its religious sense," means to 
*' purify," admits thai in classic usage it signifies to 
immerse. ' He says: *' I freely admit that in numer- 
ous cases it clearly denotes to immerse — in which 
case an agent submerges partially or totally some 
person or thing. Indeed, this is so notoriously true, 
that I need attempt no proof. Innumerable ex- 
amples are at hand." Beecher on Baptism, p. 9. 

ISTo man who has any reputation to lose, as a Greek 
scholar, will deny that haptizo, at the introduction of 
the Christian era, meant to immerse, and that usage 
had fully established this meaning. Even Dod- 
dridge and Barnes virtually admit this is its mean- 
ing in the New Testament, when used as descriptive 
of the sufferings of Christ. Hence the former para- 
phrases, Luke, xii, 50, thus : '' But I have, indeed, 
in the meantime, a most dreadful baptism to be bap- 
tized with, and know that I shall shortly be bathed, 
9* 



102 THREE REASONS, 

as it were, in blood, and flunged in the most over- 
whelming distress,'' etc. Family Expositor, p. 204. 
Barnes, in his Notes on Matthew, xx, 22, comment- 
ing on the phrase, **The baptism that I am baptized 
with,'' represents the Savior as saying to his dis- 
ciples, ** Are ye able to svffer with me — to endure 
the trials and ^:?am5 which shall come upon you and 
me, in endeavoring to build up my kingdom ? Are 
you able to he plunged deep in afflictions, to have 
sorrows cover you like water, and to be sunk beneath 
calamities as floods, in the work of religion ? Afflic- 
tions are often expressed by being sunk in the floods, 
and plunged in the deep waters.'' These passages are 
well explained, but they cannot be explained at all, 
unless baptism means immersion. Baptizo literally 
means immerse ; therefore, in its figurative applica- 
tion, it is used to denote an immersion in sorrow, 
suffering and affliction. 

But, say some, though baptizo, in classic Greek, 
means to immerse, it does not follow that it is to be 
understood in this sense in the New Testament. 
They discourse learnedly on the difference between 
classic and sacred Greek. They insist that baptizo 
has, in the Scriptures, a theological sense. In short, 
they feel quite a contempt for Ernesti's *' Principles 
of Interpretation." They forget that ''when God 
has spoken to men, he has spoken in the language 
of men, for he has spoken by men, and fr* 
men." 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 103 

For the special benefit of these tvise critics, I quote 
from the ablest Methodist work I have seen, (Wat- 
son's Theological Institutes, Vol. II, p. 153). The 
author is showing, in opposition to the Socinian view, 
that the apostles employed terms in reference to the 
death of Christ w^iich convey the idea of expiation. 
He says: **The use to be made of this in the argu- 
ment is, that as the apostles found the very terms 
they used with reference to the nature and efficacy 
of the death of Christ, fixed in an expiatory signifi- 
cation among the Greeks, they could not, in honesty y 
use them in a distant figurative sense, much less in a 
contrary one, without due notice of their having in- 
vested them with a new import being given to their 
readers. * * * ^ * In like manner, the Jews had 
their expiatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases 
used in them are, in like manner, employed by the 
apostles to characterize the death of their Lord; and 
they would have been as guilty of misleading their 
Jewish as their Gentile readers, had they employed 
them in a new sense, and without warning, which, 
unquestionably, they never gave J' 

Dr. Hodge, in his '* Way of Life,'' expresses the 
same sentiment. To all this I cordially subscribe. 
The apostles found certain terms in use among the 
people, which conveyed the idea of expiation. They 
used those terms, and evidently in that sense. As 
honest men, they could not do otherwise, without 
giving information of the fact. So reasons Mr. Wat- 



104 THREE REASONS, 

son. Yery well. The same apostles found the term 
baptizo fixed in its meaning, and that meaning was to 
immerse. Could they then ''in honesty'' employ it 
to denote sprinkle and pour without notifying their 
readers of the fact? Richard Watson being judge, 
they could not. ''Unquestionably'' they never inti- 
mated to Jew or Gentile that they used the word in 
a new sense. Now I insist that Methodists ought 
either to admit the validity of this argument in refer- 
ence to hajotizo, or reject as inconclusive Watson's 
reasoning against Socinians. It is to be remembered, 
however, that those who say that the sacred mean- 
ing of baptizo differs from its classic meaning, must 
prove it. The burden of proof is on them. If tliey 
say it means sprinkle, let them show it. If they 
affirm that it means pour, let them establish this 
signification. And if Dr. Beecher can do anything 
for his "purification theory," let him do it. Baptists 
occupy a position which commends itself to e\^ry 
unprejudiced mind. They say that baptizo, among 
the Greeks, meant to immerse, and that John the 
Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the apostles, used it just 
as the people understood it. 

I think it has now been shown that the classical 
signification of baptizo is immerse, and that it is per- 
fectly gratuitous to assert that its Scriptural differs 
from its classical import. 

4. The design of baptism furnishes an argument in 
favor of the 2>roposition I am establishing. 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 106 

It represents the burial and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. Paul says: ** Know ye not that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
into Ills death ? Therefore we are buried with him 
by baptism into death ; that, like as Christ was 
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life. Foi 
if we have been planted together in the likeness of 
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his 
resurrection." Romans vi, 3, 4, 5. ** Buried with 
him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, 
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath 
raised him from the dead." Col. ii, 12. **The like 
figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save 
us, (not the putting away of the tilth of tlie flesh, 
but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) 
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter iii, 21. 

It is clear from these passages that baptism has a 
commemorative reference to the burial and resurrec- 
tion of Christ. The two ordinances of the church 
symbolically proclaim the three great facts of the 
gospel. These facts, as Paul teaches,(l Cor.xv3 4,) 
are that Christ died, was buried, and rose again. 
The Lord's supper commemorates the first fact. All 
avp agreed in this view. At the sacramental table 
the disciples of Christ are solemnly reminded that 
their Redeemer submitted to the agonies of death. 
They weep over him as crucified — dead. In baptism 
they see him buried and raised agaiuy just as they 



106 THREE REASONS, 

see him dead in the sacred supper. Baptism is, 
therefore, a symbolic proclamation of two of the 
three prominent gospel facts — the burial and resur- 
rection of Christ. These 'facts are infinitely worthy 
of commemoration, and there is no evangelical com- 
memoration of them, unless the ordinances of the 
church are observed with the proper design. This 
by the way. Baptism also expresses in emblem the 
believer's death to sin, and resurrection to newness 
of life. In *' repentance toward God and faith to- 
ward our Lord Jesus Christ," there is a spiritual 
death to sin, and a spiritual resurrection to newness 
of life. These two facts are emblematically set forth 
in baptism. Hence the absurdity of baptizing any 
who are not dead to sin. We are baptized into the 
death of Christ. We profess our reliance on his 
death for salvation, and we profess, also, that as he 
died /or sin, we have died to sin. As burial is a 
palpable separation of the dead from tJie living, so 
baptism is a symbolic separation of those dead to 
sin from those living in sin. And as a resurrection 
from the dead indicates an entrance into a new sphere 
of existence, so baptism, in its similitude to a resur- 
rection, denotes an entrance upon a new life. Hence 
Dr. Chalmers, in his Lecture on Romans, vi, 3-7, 
remarks tliat we ** are conceived in the act of de- 
scending under the water of baptism, to have re- 
signed an old life, and in the act of ascending, to 
emerge into a second or new life." There is an 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 107 

emblematic renunciation of *'the old life/' and there is 
an emblematic entrance upon " the new life." Wm. 
Tyndale very appropriately remarks : ** The plunging 
into the water signifietb that we die and are buried 
-with Christ, as concerning the old Hfe of sin, which 
is Adam. And the pulhng out again signifietb that 
we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the 
Holy Ghost.'' 

Baptism bitwise anticipates the believer's resur- 
rection from the dead. This we learn from 1 Cor. 
XV, 29 : ** Else what shall they do, who are baptized 
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are 
they then baptized for the dead?" These questions 
are proposed by Paul in the midst of an argument 
on the resurrection of the dead. Some of the Co- 
rinthians, it seems, denied the doctrine of the resur- 
rection, and yet it does not appear that they ques- 
tioned the propriety of an observance of the ordinance 
of baptism. Paul virtually tells them that baptism 
has an anticipative reference to the resurrection on 
the last day. It has this reference because it has 
a commemorative reference to the resurrection of 
Christ. It anticipates, because it commemorates. 
The reason is obvious. The resurrection of the 
Lord Jesus procures the resurrection of his followers, 
and is an infallible pledge bf it. The two resurrec- 
tions are inseparable. Baptism, therefore, while it 
commemorates the resurrection of Christ, anticipates, 
of necessity, the resurrection of his followers. Dr 



108 THREE REASONS, 

A. Clarke, in his commentary on the verse undel 
consideration, says : '' The sum of the apostle's mean- 
ing appears to be this: If there be no resurrection 
of the dead, those who, in 'becoming Christians, ex- 
pose themselves to all manner of privations, crosses, 
severe sufferings, and a violent death, can have no 
compensation, nor any motive sufficient to induce 
them to expose themselves to such miseries. But as 
they receive baptism as an emblem of death, in vol- 
untarily going under the vrater, so they receive it as 
an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in 
coming up out of the water : thus they are baptized 
for the dendy in perfect faith of the resurrection.*' 

Now, if these views of the design and emblematic 
import of baptism are correct, it follows inevitably 
that the immersion in water of a believer in Christ 
is essential to baptism — so essential that there is no 
baptism without it. If baptism represents the burial 
and resurrection of Christ, it must be immersion. 
Do the sprinkling and pouring of water bear any 
analogy to a burial and resurreciion? Absolutely 
none. They would never suggest the idea of burial 
or resurrection. Immersion, however, bears a striking 
resemblance to a burial and resurrection. We are 
"buried by baptism" — that is, by means of baptism. 
When the baptismal process is performed there is 
certainly a '* burial.'* The two are inseparable; and 
therefore, where there is no ** burial," there is no 
itism. Were it necessary, I might show that 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 109 

Wall, Whitefield, Wesley, Doddridge, Chalmers, 
Barnes, Macknight, Bloomlield, and many others, all 
Pedobaptists, admit that the, phrase, ''buried by 
baptism,'' alludes to immersion. 

It is quite common, however, for the Rabbis of 
Pedobaptist Israel, in these latter days, to insist that 
there is no reference to ''water baptism." Spiritual 
baptism, say they, is spoken of. They think in this 
way to nullify the argument for immersion. But do 
they accomplish their object? Let us see. I will 
meet these Rabbis on their own chosen ground. Let 
it be conceded, then, for argument's sake, that 
" buried by baptism " denotes spiritual baptism. 
Then there is a spiritual burial. Now it is a well 
settled point among Pedobaptists that the outward 
baptism is a sign of the inward. If, then, the in- 
ward baptism involves a spiritual burial, the outward 
baptism should involve a burial in water, that it may 
adequately represent the inward. Men may torture 
and put to the rack the phrase, "buried by bap- 
tism," but it will testify of immersion. It cannot be 
divested of its allusion to Christian immersion. 

To conclude the argument from the design of bap- 
tism : — How stands the matter ? If baptism com- 
memorates the burial and resurrection of Christ, it 
must be immersion. If it is an emblematic repre- 
sentation of death to sin, and resurrection to newness 
of life, (and to this view Pedobaptists do not specially 
ebject,) the representation is essentially incomplete 
10 



110 THREE REASONS, 

without immersion. If there is something in it which 
anticipates and resembles the resurrection of the 
dead, still it must t)e immersion. Sprinkhng and 
pouring are as infinitely unlike a resurrection as they 
are unlike a burial. Even if Dr. Beecher's ** purifi- 
cation theory'' were to receive the countenance which 
he no doubt thinks it deserves, immersion would be 
more suitable than sprinkling or pouring. Is not the 
whole soul defiled with sin? Must not the whole 
soul be cleansed from sin? If, then, baptism is re- 
ceived (some take this view) as a symbol of the 
necessity of purification, something that affects the 
whole body is required to indicate the totality of that 
necessity. Or if baptism is regarded as a sign of the 
purification already accomplished, then the immersion 
of the body in water is appropriate to show that the 
soul has been washed from sin in the blood of 
Christ. 

6. The places selected for the administration of bap- 
tism, and the circumstances attending its administration , 
as referred to in the New Testament, afford an addi^ 
tional argument in proof of the position of Baptists. 

John baptized in Jordan. That the Jordan is a 
suitable stream for purposes of immersion is manifest 
from the testimony of one of the most distinguished 
of modern travelers and scholars — Dr. Edward Rob- 
inson. Speaking of the Jordan, he says: *'We esti- 
mated the breadth of the stream to be from eighty 
to one hundred feet. The guides supposed it to be 






WHY I AM A BAPTIST. Ill 

)>o>v ten or twelve feet deep. I bathed in the river, 
without going out into the deep channel."* 

Even Dr. Lightfoot, who was quite conspicuous 
in his opposition to immersion, in the Westminster 
Assembly, expresses himself thus: *'That the bap- 
tism of John was by plunging the body, seems to 
appear from those things which are related of him; 
namely, that he baptized in Jordan : that he baptized 
in Enon, because there was muck water there ; and that 
Christ, being baptized, came up out of the water ; to 
which that seems to be parallel, (Acts, viii, 38,) 
^'Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, ''^ etc.f 

I -am aware that Pedobaptists argue that John's 
was not Christian baptism — that he did not live under 
the gospel dispensation, etc. Dissenting, as I cer- 
tainly do, from these views, I waive a consideration 
of them as foreign from my present purpose. It is 
sufficient for me to say, that even if it could be shown 
that John's was not Christian baptism, it would avail 
Pedobaptists nothing. Why ? John performed an 
act called baptism, and various circumstances, as 
well as the meaning of the word, indicate that that 
act was immersion. Pedobaptists attempt to invali- 
date the force of those circumstances by denying 
that John administered Christian baptism. But they 
admit that the apostles, after the resurrection of 

* Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. II, p. 256. 
t Quoted in Clarke's Commentary, Vol. V, p. 325. 



112 THREE REASONS, 

Christ, administered Christian baptism. Yery well. 
The same term used to denote the act performed by 
John, is used to designate the act performed by them. 
It must, therefore, have 'been the same act. For 
surely no sane man will say that the term baptize 
means one thing in its connection with John's min- 
istry, and a different thing in connection with the 
ministry of the apostles. Hence I repeat that if it 
could be shown that John's was not Christian bap- 
tism, it would amount to just nothing at all. 

There is another Pedobaptist sentiment which de- 
serves exposure : It is that Jesus Christ was baptized 
to initiate him into the priestly office. To sho^]<he 
absurdity of this view, I need only ask a few ques- 
tions : Was not the Messiah '*made a priest after the 
order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of 
Aaron?'' How could he be a priest, according to 
the law of Moses, when he belonged to the '* tribe 
of Judah?" Was not the priestly office confined to 
the tribe of Levi, and to the family of Aaron, in 
that tribe? Did not the law say: ''The stranger 
that Cometh nigh shall be put to death?" All tiiat 
Pedobaptists say about the baptismal initiation of 
Christ, into the priestly office, is at war with the 
Scriptures. And why this attempt to show that the 
Savior was made a priest by his baptism? The 
object must be to evade the moral poAver of his 
example. For no man can lay aside his prejudices, 
and deny that Jesus Christ was immersed in the 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 1 3 

Jordan. But if the people can be made to believe 
that the baptism of Christ had special reference to 
his sacerdotal consecration, they will feel compara- 
tively exempt from obligation to follow his example, 
as they are not baptized that they may become 
priests. The truth is that Jesus, in his baptism, as 
well as in other respects, has ''left us an example, 
that we should follow his steps.'' 

The Jordan was, unquestionably, a suitable stream 
for purposes of immersion, and John baptized in 
Jordan, and Jesus, when baptized, ''went up straight- 
way out of the water." John also baptized "in 
Enon, near to Salim." John iii, ^3. Why? Let 
Dr. Miller answer. He says : " Independently of 
immersion altogether, plentiful streams of water were 
absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment and 
sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped 
from day to day to witness the preaching and the 
baptism of this extraordinary man; together with the 
beasts employed for their transportation. Only figure 
to yourselves a large encampment of men, women 
and children, etc. ■* ^ * * ^ As a poor man, who 
lived in the wilderness, whose raiment was of the 
meanest kind, and whose food was such alone as the 
desert afforded, it is not to be supposed that he pos- 
sessed appropriate vessels for administering baptism 
to multitudes by pouring or sprinkhng. He, there- 
fore, seems to have made use of the neighboring 
stream of water for this purpose, descending its 
10^ 



I 



114 THREE REASONS, 

banks, and setting his feet on its margin, so as to 
admit of his using a handful, to answer the symboh' 
cal purpose intended by the appHcation of water in 
baptism." Miller on Baptism, pp. 92, 93. 

What to call this extract, I really do not know. It 
IS not arp'ument — it is not Iootc — it is not common 
sense. There seems to be a mixture of assertion, 
supposition and fiction. No man was more compe- 
tent to prepare such a mixture than Dr. M.* Where 
did he learn that ''plentiful streams of water were 
absolutely necessary" for the purposes which he 
specifies? What he says about the ** large encamp- 
ment," must have been a day-dream — and so must 

* I refer to Dr. Miller's work on Baptism on account of his 
prominent position in the Princeton Seminary for a long 
series of years. The book itself is remarkably unworthy of 
notice. It substitutes assertion for proof. "/ can assure 
you/^ is the dogmatic phrase often used where other men 
would have attempted to adduce proof. There are blunders 
that would be unpardonable in any student that ever was, is 
now, or ever will be at Princeton. For example, Dr. M. says: 
** The evangelists tell us that the Scribes and Pharisees in- 
variably washed (in the original baptized) their hands before 
dinner." Any Greek scholar, by turning to Mark vii, 3, may 
see that nipto is used in the original. Again: Dr. M. says, 
Judas *' is said by Christ himself, to baptize his hand in the 
dish (as it is in the original, Matthew, xxvi, 23''). Baptizo is 
not in the original. The word used is cmbapto. These may 
Kerve as specimens of the unscholarly errors of the book. Its 
author's position is surely the only thing that has ever brought 
vuch a hook into notice 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 115 

hare been the heastly portion of his statement. The 
evangehsts say nothing of the *' encampment/' and 
make no allusions to the ^' beasts.'' Poverty is a 
misfortune, but not a crime; and, therefore, I shall 
not take offense at the reference to the indigence of 
the first Baptist preacher. However, it may be 
questioned whether John was not able to own '* ap- 
propriate vessels" for purposes of '^ pouring or 
sprinkling." But admitting his extreme poverty 
when he went to the Jordan to baptize, he then 
became so popular that an intimation from him that 
he would like to have ** appropriate vessels," would 
have secured as many as all those ''beasts^' could 
have transported. Why did he not, then, get *' ves- 
sels," and supersede the necessity of his going to 
"Enon, near to Salim," where there was '*much 
water?" Would not Herod, also, have furnished 
** appropriate vessels," at the time he *' did many 
things, and heard John gladly?" But enough of 
this. 

And what does Dr. Rice, in his Lexington Debate, 
page 193, say of the '* much water ?" Here is his 
language: ''John, it is true, was baptizing in Enon, 
near Salim, because there was much water there. 
But did he want much water to baptize in ; or did he 
want it for other purposes? As I have already 
stated, multitudes of the Jews who resorted to him, 
remained together several days at a time. They 
must observe their daily ablutions. For these and 



116 THREE REASONS, 

for o]-dinary purposes, they needed much water; but 
it cannot be proved that John wanted the water for 
the purpose of baptizing.'' 

Doctors of Divinity should, of course, be wise 
men. They ought not, however, to be '*wise above 
y/hat is vrritten.'' Where did Dr. Rice learn that the 
*' multitudes" who went to John *' remained together 
several days?" Who told him about those ''daily 
ablutions?" By what sort of tortuous logic can he 
show that the Jews ''needed much water" for other 
purposes, but not for baptismal purposes, when bap- 
tism is the only thing requiring water mentioned in 
the controverted passage ? Who authorized him to 
fabricate premises that he might draw from them 
such a conclusion as he desired? It is humiliatincj 
when such men as Drs. Miller and Rice "handle the 
word of God deceitfully." I have allowed these 
gentlemen to answer the question, Why did John 
baptize in Enon, near to Salim, where there was 
much water? They have given their answers — and 
such ansiuers! It is time for the Evangelist to speak, 
and for Doctors of Divinity to keep silence. What 
does he say? "And John, also, was baptizing in 
Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water 
there: and they came and were haiAized'' Is there 
anything here about "encampments," "beasts," 
"daily ablutions," etc.? Did not the people go to 
John to be baptized — not to encamp — not to water 
their beasts — not to "observe their daily ablutions?" 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 17 

Did not John select Enon as a suitable place for his 
purpose, because there was much water there ? And 
did he not need **much water'' in baptizing? And 
is not this a powerful circumstantial argument in 
favor of immersion ? I speak in plainness and sor- 
row when I say that those who expound the passage 
under consideration as Drs. Miller and Rice have 
done, assign a reason for John's selection of Enon as 
a baptismal place which the Holy Spirit has not 
assigned. There is not an angel in heaven who 
would not tremble at the very thought of doing such 
a thing. Alas ! presumptuous mortals do many 
things from which angels would instinctively recoil. 
Were it not a solemn matter, it would be amusing to 
present a parallel to the reasoning that has now 
passed under review. If it were said that a man 
has erected a ^' merchant mill " on a certain stream 
because there is much water there, most persons 
would say that he wanted much water for purposes 
of grinding. Such men as Drs. Miller and Rice, 
however, would say: ''You totally misconceive the 
man's object. He has built his- mill on that stream, 
not because he needs the water to turn his machineiy, 
but that those who " encamp " at the mill may have 
water to drink, and perform their '' daily ablutions," 
and that their ''beasts" may drink also." This 
would be the reasoning ; and most people would say, 
if the authors of such reasoning are not sent to a 
Lunatic Asylum, there is no use for Lunatic Asylums. 



118 THREE REASONS, 

After all, I must say that Dr. Rice is a logician — 
a conclusive reasoner — and an admirable preacher. 
I refer now to his ordinary pulpit ministrations. But 
put him on the wrong side of a question, as he is in 
the baptismal controversy, and he is at once like 
Samson, shorn of his locks. It is the cause, rather 
than the man, that is weak. 

To demolish all that has ever been said about 
John's selecting places where there was much water 
for other than baptismal purposes, I need only state 
a few facts: We are told that in the early pari 
of the Savior's ministry, ''great multitudes followed 
him" — subsequently he miraculously fed at one time 
''four thousand," and at another "five thousand 
men, beside women and children " — and on anothei 
occasion " an innumerable multitude gathered to- 
gether, so that they trod one upon another." But 
there was nothing said about water. It is not said 
that " seeing the multitude, he went where there 
was much water, that they might be refreshed — but 
he went into a mountain. Why is water not men- 
tioned in connection with the crowds that so often 
thronged about the Savior? When, however, John's 
baptism is referred to, (John, iii, 23,) it is said he 
was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there 
was much luater there. Did he select that place 
that the people and their beasts might drink, bo 
refreshed, etc. ; and was the Savior less considerate? 
The truth is — and it is vain for men or devils to deny 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 119 

it — much water was required in baptism. This would 
not have been the case if baptism had not been im- 
mersion. There is nothing said about baptism in 
connection with the multitudes that often crowded 
around the Savior, and therefore there is na mention 
of water — ''much water." 

The baptism of the Ethiopian (referred to Acts, 
viii, 38,) is worthy of consideration. The sacred 
historian says: ''And they went down both into the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized 
him. And when they were come up out of the 
water," etc. It has been often said that going into 
the water does not necessarily imply immersion. And 
who supposes that it does ? It would surely be pos- 
sible to " go into water," and " come up out of it," 
without being immersed. But suppose, as in the 
case before us, between the two movements the act 
of baptism occurs. What then ? Evidently the 
word baptize must determine the nature of that act. 
This is the view entertained by Baptists. They say 
the term baptize shows what act Philip performed 
after he descended with the eunuch into the water. 
And they confidently appeal to all Greek literature, 
profane and sacred, in support of the position that 
haptizo means to immerse. Hence they would be as 
fully satisfied as they now are of the eunuch's im- 
mersion, if not one word had been said about the 
descent into the water. Still they regard the going 
doNvn into the water and the coming up out of the 



120 THREE REASONS, 

water as furnishing a very strong circumstantial proof 
of immersion. They assume that Philip and the 
eunuch were men of good sense, and, if so, they did 
not go into the water fop purposes of ^^poiiring or 
sprinlilii^g/' Persons of good sense could not do 
so foolish a thing. 

But it is said that the Greek preposition, eis, trans- 
lated into, means to, and that Philip and the eunuch 
only went to the water. As sensible men, they would 
not have done that, if pouring or sprinkling had been 
the act to be performed. Why go down to the water? 
Why not have a cup full, or a spoonful, taken up to 
the chariot? 

In reference to m. Dr. Summers, in his book on 
Baptism, p. 100, says: *'When eis means into, it is 
before the noun, as well as before the verb." The 
argument based on this statement is, that as eis is 
used but once in Acts, viii, 38, Philip and the eunuch 
did not go into, but only to the water, and the con- 
clusion is, that **the eunuch was not immersed.'' 

Did Dr. S. ever read the second chapter of Mat- 
thew, in Greek? If so, he knows that in verses 11, 
12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, we have the phrases, **into 
the house,'' ''into their own country," ''into Egypt," 
"into the land of Israel," and "into the parts of 
Galilee." He knows, also, that eis is translated into, 
in all these places, and that it is used but once. If, 
then, the statement of Dr. S. is true in regard to eis, 
the "wise men" did not go ''into the house," did 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 121 

not return ^'into their own country." Joseph was \ 

not required to '' flee into Egypt/' etc. 

Again, if the philology of Dr. S. is worth any- 
thing, the devils referred to, Matthew, viii, 31, 32, 
33, did not enter *' into the swine," and the swine did 
not rtin *' into the sea," and the keepers of the swine 
did not go ''into the city," etc. In all these places, 
eis is used but once. It seems, also, that the Savior, 
in Matthew, ix, 17, did not speak of putting wine into 
bottles, but only to bottles ; for eis is used but once. 
Query: How could the '* new wine" break the *'old 
bottles " without being put into them ? Once more : 
It is said, Matthew, xxv, 46, '' And these shall go 
away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous 
hito life eternal." Here, also, eis is used but once, 
and according to the criticism I am exposing, the 
wicked do not go *'into everlasting punishment," nor 
the righteous *'into life eternal." But in all these 
passages, Pedobaptists very readily admit that eis 
means into. They have no objection to this meaning, 
unless baptismal waters are referred to. This httle 
word eiSy is a strange word, indeed, if what they say 
of it, is true. It will take a man into a country, into 
a city, into a house, into a ship, into heaven, into 
hell — into any place in the universe, except the 
water ! Poor word 1 afflicted, it seems, with hydro- 
phobia. It will allow a person to go to the water, 
but not into it. However, where baptism is not re- 
ferred to, it may denote entrance into water, as in 
11 



122 THREE REASOInS, 

Mark, ix, 22. But laying irony aside, I affirm in 
the face of the hterary world, that Greek writers 
often use eis twice, to express the idea of entrance 
into a place — once in composition with the verb, and 
once before the noun or pronoun — and they often use 
it but once to denote the same idea of entrance iiito 
a place. The man who does not know this, ought 
to relinquish all pretensions to Greek scholarship. 
A Freshman, in any of our colleges, would deserve 
rebuke, w^ere he to make such statements in refer- 
ence to eiSy as Pedobaptist Doctors of Divinity, 
frequently make. 

Suppose the follow^ing facts were published in any 
Pedobaptist paper in America: '*An officer of the 
United States' Government was traveling — riding in a 
carriage, and reading in the prophecy of Isaiah. A 
minister was going on foot, in the same direction, and 
w^as invited by the officer to ride w^ith him. Having 
accepted the invitation, the minister preached Jesus 
to the officer; and as they journeyed, the officer said. 
See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be bap- 
tized ? And the minister said, If thou believest with 
all thy heart, thou mayest. And the officer said, I 
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And 
he commanded the carriage to stand still : and they 
went down both into the water, both the minister and 
ihe officer, and he baptized him. And when they 
were come up out of the water,'' etc. Let such a 
narrative as this be published in a Pedobaptist paper, 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 123 

and the readers of that paper, without an exception, 
wrould say : That minister was an immersionist, and 
that officer was immersed. IS'ow, I ask, if such a 
narrative as this, would not be substantially the nar- 
rative we have in Acts, viii, 27 — 39 ? Let the reader 
determine. When will men learn to exercise a little 
common sense in reference to religious matters ? 

Pedobaptists are exceedingly unreasonable in their 
management of the baptismal controversy. They 
insist that it is utterly improbable that suitable water 
could be found at Jerusalem for the immersion of 
three thousand persons, on the day of Pentecost — 
that there is no reference to a stream of water in con- 
nection with the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, the 
jailer, etc., etc. One would imagine that if there 
was anything said about a ''river," ''much water," 
etc., it would be conceded that these baptisms were 
immersions. But it would not be so. For when 
Baptists refer to the Jordan or Enon, where there 
was "much water," or to the water into which Philip 
and the eunuch went down, Pedobaptists argue that 
an abundance of water, by no means, indicates that 
the act of immersion was performed. We cannot 
please them at all. They are like the Jewish children 
in the markets: If we pipe to them, they will not 
dance ; if we mourn to them they will not lament. If 
there is no mention of a " river " in connection with a 
baptismal narrative of the Isew Testament, the cry 
is, "no immersion, scarcity of water," etc. If th€ 



124 THREE REASONS^ 

river Jordan is named, the same cry of *' no immer- 
sion/' is heard. So that, according to Pedobaptist 
logic, scarcity of water, and abundance of water, 
prove the very same thing ! Hoav are w^e to meet in 
argument, men who draw the same conclusion from 
premises as far apart '-'as from the center, thrice to 
the utmost pole?'' They repudiate all the laws of 
logic, and trample under their feet, all the principles 
of common sense. But I will not indulge in severity 
of remark. Such men probably have enough to suf- 
fer from the accusations of conscience, if, indeed, 
conscience has not ceased to perform its office. 

John Calvin felt the force of the argument in favor 
of immersion, derived from the places selected for 
the administration of baptism. Hence, in his Com- 
mentary, (translated by Rev. William Pringle, Edin- 
burgh, and printed for the Calvin Translation So- 
ciety^) he remarks, on John, iii, 22, 23, ** From 
these words we may infer that John and Christ ad- 
ministered baptism by plunging the whole body 
beneath the water." On Acts, viii, 38, he says : 
** Here we see the rite used among the men of old 
time, in baptism ; for they put all the body into the 
water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth 
only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought 
not to stand so much about a small difference of a 
ceremony, that we should, therefore, divide the 
church, or trouble the same with brawls, * * * * 
* *. Wherefore the church did grant liberty cc 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. J 25 

Iierself, since the beginning, to change the rites 
somewhat, excepting the substance." So much for 
the testimony of the Founder of Presbyteiianism. 

Before I proceed to the historical argument in 
favor of immersion, I will say that if baptizo means 
to immerse, it does not mean sprinkle or pour. If it 
means sprinkle, it does not mean immerse or pour. 
If it means pour, it does not mean sprinkle or im- 
merse. It is nonsense to say that the word can de- 
note three actions so dissimilar. It is an outrage 
on the philosophy of language. Did not Jesus 
Christ, in enjoining baptism, give a specific com- 
mand? If he did not, it is impossible to know what 
he requires, and the impossibility releases from all 
obhgation to obey the requirement. I say boldly 
that it is not the duty of any man to be baptized, if 
he cannot know what baptism is. All candid per- 
sons, upon examination of the subject, must admit 
that the Savior gave a specific command, when he 
enjoined baptisna on believers. And if so, he did 
not require them to be immersed in water, or that 
water be poured or sprinkled on them. He did 
not require any one of three things ; for on this sup- 
position, the command loses its specific character. 
The matter then comes to this point : Did Christ re- 
quire believers to be immersed in water, or to have 
water applied to them by sprinkhng or pouring? 
Now, if the word baptize, in the New Testament, 
means sprinkle or pour, as Pedobaptists insist; and 
11* 



126 THREE REASONS, 

if baptism is an ''application of water," is it not in- 
finitely remarkable that water is never said to be 
baptized upon the subject of the ordinance, and that 
the water is never said 'to be applied? If baptize 
means sprinkle or pour, the water is baptized, not 
the person. We cannot speak of sprinkling a man 
without an ellipsis or figure of speech. And no 
rational person would expect to find either an ellipsis 
or figure of speech in the apostolic commission. 
Sprinkling implies the separation and scattering of 
the particles of the substance sprinkled. A man 
cannot be poured, because pouring implies a continu- 
ous stream of the substance poured. I say again, 
if baptize, in the New Testament, means sprinkle or 
pour, the water is baptized. But nowhere is water 
found in the objective case, after the verb baptize, in 
the active voice, and nowhere is it the nominative 
case to the verb in the passive voice. We never 
read; I baptize water uipon you; but I baptize i/ou. 
It is never said : Water was baptized upon them ; but 
it is said : **they were hajMzed, both men and women." 
The subjects of the ordinance are baptized, the water 
is not. And, therefore, baptize, in the New Testa- 
ment, signifies neither sprinkle nor pour. But sub- 
stitute immerse for it, and how plain and beautiful 
every baptismal narrative ! I immerse you, not the 
water. They were immersed, that is, the ''men and 
women^ Those who do not look upon this state- 
ment of the matter as conclusive against sprinkling and 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 127 

pouring, ought (even if they are Doctors of Divinity) 
to apply themselves at once to the study of English 
Grammar. A knowledge of this science, coupled 
with candor and common sense, would extricate them 
from the mazes of error. 

6. History hears testimony to the practice of immer- 
sion, except in cases of sickness and itrgent necessity , 
for more than thirteen hundred years, 

I avail myself, as I have done, of Pedobaptist wit- 
nesses : My first witness is Richard Baxter, author 
of the *' Saints' Rest." He says: *' It is commonly 
confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commen- 
tators declare, that in the apostles' times, the bap- 
tized were dipped over. head in the water, and that 
this signified their profession, both of believing the 
burial and resurrection of Christ ; and of their own 
present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to 
sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of 
life, or being buried and risen again with Christy 
as the apostle expoundeth, in the fore-cited texts of 
Col. ii, and Rom. vi."^ 

The celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson refers to the 
Roman Catholics as giving the sacramental bread to 
the laity, and withholding the cup from them. He 
remarks: '*They may think that in what is merely 
ritual, deviations from the primitive mode may be 
admitted on the ground of convenience ; and I think 

* Quoted in Booth's Pedobaptism Examined. 



128 THREE REASONS, 

thej are as well warranted to make this alteration; 
as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the 
ancient baptism."^ 

John Wesley, in his Journal of Feb. 21, 1736, 
writes as follows: ''Mary Welch, aged eleven days, 
was baptized according to the custom of the first 
church, and the rule of the Church of England, by 
immersion." 

Dr. Miller, with his bitter opposition to immersion, 
says : ''It is not denied that, for the first few cen- 
turies after Christ, the most common mode of admin- 
istering baptism was by immersion. "f 

The learned Mosheim, in his Church History, says 
of the first century : " The sacrament of baptism was 
administered in this century, without the public as- 
semblies, in places appointed and prepared for that 
purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the 
whole body in the baptismal font." 

Of the second century, he says: "The persons 
that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the 
creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and par- 
ticularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were 
immersed under water and received into Christ's 
kingdom," etc. 

Of the fourth century, he says: "Baptismal fonts 
were now erected in the porch of each church, for 



*Bosweirs Life of Johson, Vol. II., p. 383. 
t Miller on Baptism, p. 116. 



WHY 1 AM A B.APTIST. 129 

the more commodious administration of that initiating 
sacrament.'"^ 

The celebrated Church Historian, Xeander, in his 
Letter to Judd, expresses himself thus: ^'As to 
jour question on the original rite of baptism, there 
can be no doubt whatever, that in the primitive times, 
the ceremony was performed by immersion, to signify 
a complete immersion into the new principle of life 
divine, which was to be imparted by the Messiah. 
When St. Paul says, that through baptism we are 
buried with Christ, and rise again with him, he un- 
questionably alludes to the symbol of dipping into, 
and rising again out of the water. The practice of 
immersion, in the first centuries, was, beyond all 
doubt, prevalent in tlie whole church : the only ex- 
ception was made with the baptism of the sick, hence 
termed haptisma clinicorum, which was performed 
merely by sprinkling. "j- I might quote other testi- 
mony like this, from Meander's '' Church History," 
and his '^ Planting and Training of the Cliristian 
Church,'' but the foregoing is sufficient from the 
DTeat Lutheran. 

Dr. Whitby, of the Church of England, in his 
Commentary, says, on Eom. vi, 4, "It being so ex- 
pressly declared here and Colos. ii, 12, that we 
are * buried with Christ in baptism,' by being buried 

»Maclaine's Mosheim, (m 2 Vols.,) Vol. I., pp. 46, 69, 121, 
i See Appendix to Judd's Review of Stuart. 



130 THREE REASONS 

under water ; and the argument to oblige us to a con 
formity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence 
and this immersion being rehgiously observed by all 
Christians for THIRTEEN CENTURIES, and ap- 
proved by our church, and the change of it into 
sprinkHng, even without any allowance from the au- 
^.hor of the institution, or any license from any coun- 
cil of the church, being that which the Romanist still 
ui'geth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ; 
it were to be wished, that this custom might be again of 
general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, 
in case of the clinici, or in present danger of death/* 
And what says Professor Stuart? Quoting Augusti, 
who refers to the ancient practice of immersion as '*a 
thing made out,'' he says : '* So, indeed, all the wri- 
ters who have thoroughly investigated this subject, 
conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times, 
which seems to be more clearly and certainly made 
out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid 
man who examines the subject, to deny this.'' Again: 
*' The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental 
Church has always continued to preserve, even down 
to the present time. The members of this churcli 
are accustomed to call the members of the western 
churches, spriiikled Christians ^ by way of ridicule 
and contempt. They maintain, that haptizo can mean 
notliing but immerge ; and that baptism by sprinklinf) 
is as great a solecism as immersion by as2)ersion ; and 
they claim to themselves the lionor of having pre- 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 131 

served the ancient sacred rite of the church free 
from change and from corruption, which would de- 
stroy its significancy.''* 

Coleman, in his recent work, entitled ** Ancient 
Christianity Exemphfied," referring to immersion, 
says : **In the primitive church, immediately subse- 
quent to the age of the apostles, this was undeniably 
the common mode of baptism. The utmost that can 
be said of sprinkling in that early period is that it 
was, in case of necessity, permitted as an exception 
to a general rule. This fact is so well established 
that it were needless to adduce authorities in proof 
of it. * * * * ^ * It is a great mistake to suppose 
that baptism by immersion was discontinued when 
infant baptism became generally prevalent : the prac- 
tice of immersion continued even until the thirteenth 
or fourteenth century. Indeed it has never been 
formally abandoned ; but is still the mode of admin- 
istering baptism in the Greek Church and in several 
of the Eastern Churches. "j- 

This testimony is worthy of special consideration ; 
for Coleman often takes occasion to express the ojoin- 
ion that immersion is not essential to baptism. He 
sometimes steps out of his way to do this, but the 
undeniable facts of history prompt a reluctant decla- 
ration of the truth. 

* Stuart on Mode of Baptism, 75, 76, 77. 
t Paiges 395, 396. 



132 THREE REASONS, 

As immersion was the general practice for more 
than thirteen hundred years, the reader may hfi 
anxious to know how it has been, to so lamentable 
an extent, superseded by sprinkling. The following 
quotations explain the matter : 

Dr. Wall, in his ''History of Infant Baptism,'* 
speaking of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which 
continued from A. D. 1558 to 1603, says : '* It being 
allowed to weak children (tho' strong enough to be 
brought to church) to be baptized by afifusion, many 
fond ladies and gentlemen first, and then by degrees 
the common people would obtain the favor of the 
Priest to have their children pass for weak children, 
too tender to endure dipping in water. Especially 
(as Mr. Walker observes) if some instance really were, 
or were hut fancied or framed^ of some child's taking 
hurt by it. And another thing that had a greater in- 
fluence than this, was ; That many of our English 
Divines and other people had, during Queen Mary's 
bloody reign, fled into Germany, Switzerland, etc., 
and coming back in Queen Elizabeth's time, they 
brought with them a great love to the customs of 
those Protestant churches wherein they had so- 
journed : And especially the authority of Calvin., and 
the rules which he had established at Geneva, had a 
mighty influence on a great number of our people 
about that time. Now Calvin had not only given his 
Dictate, in his Institutions, that the difference is of no 
moment y whether he that is baptized be dipt all over ; 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 133 

and if so, whether thrice aa* once; or whether he he 
only vjetted with the water poured on him : But he had 
also drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva^ 
(and afterward pubhshed to the world,) a form of 
administering the sacraments, where, when he comes 
to order the act of baptizing, he words it thus : Then 
the minister of haptism pours water on the infant ; say- 
ing, I baptize thee, etc. There had been, as I said, 
some Synods in some Dioceses of France that had 
spoken of affusion without mentioning immersion at 
all ; that being the common practice : but for an 
Office or Liturgy of any church ; this is, I believe, 
the first in the world that prescribes affusion abso- 
lutely/' 

Dr. Wall also refers to the influence of the West- 
minster Assembly, in substituting pouring and sprink- 
ling for immersion. That Assembly not only made 
a '' Confession of Faith,'' but a *' Directory for the 
public Worship of God," in which ''pouring or 
sprinkling" is declared ''not only lawful," but suffi- 
cient, and most expedient." Such a declaration 
surely would not have been made, if "pouring " and 
"sprinkling" had not been of comparatively recent 
origin in England. This, however, by way of pa- 
nthesis. Dr. Wall says : " So (parallel to the rest 
l^eir reformations) they reformed the Font into a 
\jQ^Y This Learned Assembly could not remem- 
by tfev Fonts to baptize in, had been always used 
dtive Christians, long before the beginning 



^34 THREE REASONS, 

of Popery ; and ever sinc§ churches were built : But 
that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing, 
was really introduced (in France first, and then in 
other Popish countries) i^n times of Popery : And 
that accordingly all those countries in which the 
usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been, 
owned, have left off dipping of children in the Font : 
But that all other countries in the world (which had 
never regarded his authority) do still use it : And 
that Basins, except in case of necessity, were never 
used by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, 
till by themselves. The use was; The minister con- 
tinuing in his reading Desk, the child was brought 
and held below him : And there was placed for that 
use a little Basin of water about the bigness of a 
syllabub pot, into which the minister, dipping his 
fingers, and then holding his hand over the face of 
the child, some drops would fall from his fingers on 
the child's face. For the Directory says, it is not only 
lawful, hut most expedient to use pouring or sprink- 
ling."^ 

My last quotation, in vindication of the *' truth of 
history,'' is taken from the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, 
edited by Sir David Brewster, a distinguished Ped 
baptist. It contains the following account of **sp]^ 
ling." '* The first law for sprinkling was ob^no 
in the following manner: Pope Stephen F 

« History of Infant Baptism, Part II, Olir 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 36 

driven from Rome by Astolphus, King of the Lom- 
bards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time be- 
fore, had usurped the crown of France. While he 
remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, 
consulted him, whether in case of necessity, baptism 
performed by pouring water on the head of the in- 
fant would be lawful.' Stephen replied that it would. 
But thous'h the truth of this fact should be allowed, 
which, howeve'i*^ some Catholics deny, yet pouring 
or sprinkling was admitted only in cases of necessity. 
It was not till the year 1311, that the legislature. Id 
a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or 
sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country, [Scot- 
land], however, sprinkling was never practiced in 
ordinary cases till after the Reformation ; and in 
England, even in the reign of Edward YI, trine im- 
mersion was commonly observed. But during the 
persecution of Mary, many persons, most of whom 
were Scotsmen, fled from England to Geneva, and 
there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. 
In 1556, a book was published at that place, contain- 
ing ' The form of prayers and ministration of sacra- 
ments, approved by the famous and godly-learned 
man, John^Calvin,' in which the administrator is en- 
joined to take water in his hand and lay it on the 
child's forehead. These Scottish exiles, who had re- 
nounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly ac- 
knowledged the authority of Calvin ; and return- 
ing to their own country, with John Knox at their 



136 THREE REASONS, 

head, in 1559, established sprinkhng in Scotland. 
From Scotland, this practice made its way into Eng 
land, in the reign of Ehzabeth ; but was not author- 
ized by the established church." Article Baptism. 

If I have not now shown that immersion was 
practiced for more than thirteen centuries, except in 
cases of sickness and necessity, it is impossible for 
any thing to be shown. The man who is not con- 
vinced by the testimony adduced in support of this 
fact, would not be ''persuaded though one should 
rise from the dead.'' Such a man, if he had a pur- 
pose to accomplish by it, would deny that the sun 
shone for the first thirteen centuries of the Christian 
era. What then is to be thought of those Pedobap- 
tist ministers who say that *' it cannot be proved that 
immersion was practiced before the sixteenth cen- 
tury?'' They are remarkable men — remarkable either 
for isfnorance or a want of candor. I do not deter- 
mine the point of their remarkahleness. They ought 
to study, at least, the alphabetical portions of Church 
History. They would then know, that until the last 
few hundred years, immersion was the general rule, 
and aspersion the exception. They would learn that 
at one period the propriety of a copious pouring 
of water on the entire persons of the sick, on their 
beds, instead of baptism, was seriously called in 
question, and, by some, most positively denied. 
They would ascertain (though the fact would greatly 
astonish them) that many more infants have been 



WMJf 1 AM A BAPTIST. 137 

immersed than ever had tne operation of sprinkling 
or pouring performed on them. The man who de- 
nies this fact, knows comparatively nothing of eccle- 
siastical history. Immersion, however, so far as un- 
conscious infants are concerned, is no better than 
sprinkling. Both are uncommanded in the word of 
God, and belong to the large family of human tradi- 
tions. 

My readers must decide whether my second rea- 
son for being a Baptist, is valid. To me, its validity 
appears perfectly unquestionable. I am a Baptist 
BECAUSE Baptists consider the immersion in water, 

OF A BELIEVER IN ChRIST, ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM SO 

ESSENTIAL THAT THERE IS NO BAPTISM WITHOUT IT. 

Before I proceed to give my third reason for being 
a Baptist, it is, perhaps, proper that I briefly notice 
the most prominent Pedobaptist objections to immer- 
sion. A brief notice is all that is necessary. 

1 . John, it is argued, hajptlzed not in, hut at Jordan. 

Episcopalians and Methodists are precluded from a 
resort to this argument ; for the *' Book of Common 
Prayer," and the '* Disciphne," both teach that Jesus 
was baptized "-in the river Jordan.'' John baptized 
m the wilderness. Here we have the same word in, 
the representative of the Greek en. How would it 
do to say John baptized at the wilderness? The 
Greek is surely a strange language, if it has no 
preposition which means in. If en has not this 
meaning, there is no word in the language that has. 
12* 



138 THREE REASONS, 

Let any Greek scholar try to express, in Greek, the 
idea of being in a place, in a house, in a river, etc., 
without the use of en. The ordinary meaning of en, 
is in, and of m, into, 
.2. Jolin^ it is said, baptized ^^ivith vmter.''^ 

It is insisted that ''with water,'" denotes that the 
water was aioplied in baptism. It is enough to say, 
in reply to this objection, that Baptists never immerse 
without water. John speaks of baptism in water, in 
the Holy Ghost, and in fire. King James's Transla- 
tors, no doubt, rendered en, with, to make, what they 
considered, an emphatic distinction between the bap- 
tismal elements. They were wrong. Every scholar 
knows that the proper rendering is, in water. The 
little preposition en, acts a conspicuous part here, 
also. It is the same word already defined. It is as 
proper to say that John baptized with the wilderness, 
and loith the Jordan, as that he baptized with water* 
En is translated in, in the first two instances, and 
why should it be rendered with, in the last ? Can 
any scholar give a good reason? But, as I have 
said, Baptists do not immerse without water. If I 
say, ''the clothes were washed with water," does it 
follow that they were not dipped into it ? Surely not. 

3. It is urged with great confidence that three thousand 
persons cozild not have been immersed on the day of 
Pentecost. 

It is supposed that water could not be had for the 
purpose. Indeed ! Where now is the ''much water " 



WHT I AM A BAPTIST. 139 

that Dr. Rice found necessary for the ^' daily ablu- 
tions " of the Jews ? They certainly performed their 
*' ablutions '' at home, if they could not be dispensed 
with when they went to John's baptism. Jerusalem, 
according to Robinson, *' would appear always to have 
had a full supply of water for its inhabitants, both in 
ancient and modern times. In the numerous sieges 
to which, in all ages, it has been exposed, we no- 
where read of any want of water within the city.''* 
Where people can live there is water enough for 
pui-poses of immersion. But why dwell on this point? 
If Jerusalem had been situated on the Mediterranean 
sea, Pedobaptists would not allow eis to take the three 
thousand converts into its waters. They are no more 
wilhno' to admit immersion, where there is an abun- 
dance of water, than where there is a supposed 
scarcity. 

But it is insisted that it was impossible for the 
three thousand converts to be immersed on the dav 
of Pentecost, and therefore water must have been 
sprinkled or poured on them. I answer, it takes 
about as much time to sprinkle as it does to immerse. 
Much the greater portion of time, in modern baptisms, 
is occupied in repeating the words of the baptismal 
ceremony. If it is said, that sprinkling was more 
expeditiously performed in ancient than in modern 
times, I have an equal right to say the same thing 



* Biblical Researches, Vol. I, p. 479. 



140 THREE REASONS, 

of immersion. If the apostles alone baptized on the 
day of Pentecost, (which, however, cannot be proved,) 
they could have easily immersed the three thousand.* 
If Pedobaptists deny this', let them account for the 
historical fact that Austin the monk, sent by Pope 
Gregory the Great into England in the year 697, to 
convert the inhabitants, *^ consecrated the river Swale, 
near York, in which he caused ten thousand of his 
converts to be baptized in one day." They were 
immersed. 

4. It is thought to militate against immersion that the 
Holy Spii'it is said to be poured out. 

If so, it militates equally against sprinkling. If 
pouring is baptism, why is not the Spirit sometimes 
said to be baptized ? He is said to be poured out ! 
There is as much difference between the pouring out 
of the Spirit, and the baptism of the Spirit, as there 
is between the pouring of water into a baptistery and 
the immersion of a person in that water. Those 
baptized '*with the Holy Ghost," or rather *'in the 
Holy Ghost," were placed under the influence of the 
Holy Ghost, just as a person baptized in water is put 
under the influence of the water. If the Pedobap- 
tist reasoning on this subject is correct, what follows? 
Why, that as the Spirit is said to be *' given," tc 
*'fall upon," to 'testify," to ''till," to ''write," etc., 

* The writer once saw the venerable Reuben Ross, wheL 
more than sixty years of age, baptize sixty-six persons hi 
tliirty-three minutes; and tlicre was no indecent haste. 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 



141 



therefore, giving, falling upon, testifying, filling, 
writing, etc., are all baptism. Surely this will not do. 

5. Saul of Tarsus, it is affirmed, was baptized standf- 
ing up. 

The participle anastas is sometimes so translated, 
but in numerous instances denotes the beginning of a 
process by which a thing is done. It is said, (Luke, 
i, 39,) *' And Mary arose (anastasa — same word with 
a feminine termination,) in those days, and went into 
the hill country,'' etc. Did Mary stand up and go? 
Does not anastasa here denote the beginning of the 
process by which she reached the hill country ? In 
Luke, XV, 18, the prodigal son says, '* I will arise 
(a7iastas) and go to my father," etc., and in verse 
20 it is said: "And he arose, (anastas,) and came 
to his father." Did he stand up and go to his father? 
Was not the anastas the commencement of the re- 
turning movement? He arose and returned to his 
father. Now Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. 
Is it not reasonable, then, to believe, that when he 
says (Acts, ix, 18,) that Saul arose (anastas) and 
was baptized, he means hj anastas the beginning of a 
process necessary to his baptism? He evidently arose 
that he might be immersed; but no rising up — no 
anastas — was necessary, if water was to be poured or 
sprinkled on him. His immersion implied the move- 
ment indicated by anastas, while pouring or sprink- 
ling could imply no such movement. In the thirty- 
ninth verse of the same chapter it is said: "And 



142 



THREE REASONS, 



Peter arose (anastas) and went with them" — that is, 
to Joppa. He did not stand up still and go ; but he 
arose as the first thing lo be done in getting to Joppa, 
just as Saul arose as the^first thing to be done in get- 
ting to a suitable place for immersion. But I shall 
let Saul, who afterward became Paul, settle this 
matter himself. In Eomans, vi, 4, including him- 
self with those to whom he wrote, he says: *'We 
are buried with him by baptism." If Saul was 
buried by baptisni, he was immersed. There is no 
burial in pouring or sprinkling. 

6. It is argued that the question, Can any man for- 
bid ivater that these should not he baptized? (Acts, x, 
47,) intimates that the water was to be brought, etc. 

This objection to immersion is almost a laughable 
one. The question only means. Can any one forbid 
the baptism of these Gentiles, who have received 
the Holy Spirit as well as the Jews ? Baptist minis- 
ters, in receiving candidates for baptism, often say 
to the Churches, '' Can any man forbid water," etc. 
Does this imply that the water is to be brought in a 
*^bowl" or ** pitcher?" 

7. It is said that the jailer could not have been 
immersed in prison. (See Acts, xvi, 30-34.) 

Baptists do not say he was immersed in prison. 
The jailer brought out Paul and Silas from the prison 
before he said, ** Sirs, what must I do," etc. ? Then 
they spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all 
that weie in his house. It seems, then, that they 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 143 

is 



were in his house, (rprse 32). In verse 34 it 
said, "And when hf had brought them into his 
house," etc. The /'li'rty-third verse contains an 
account of the bi^^'sm. They left the house when 
the baptism to/P'^^'e, and they went back into it 
after the bapti^ ^^ o^er. Why did they leave the 
house to spr"^^® ^^ P°"r '^ater ? Was it necessary ? 
Evidently -•'' ^^* ^' ^^^ necessary to the adminis- 
tration y^Postolic baptism. 

g Maptists urge that the baptism of the Israel- 
ites ''*';^''««« «« ihe cloud and in the sea is irrecon- 
.^e with the idea of immersion. 
xn being baptized into or unto Christ, we publicly 
.ssume him as our leader. The Israelites, in being 
baptized unto Moses, publicly assumed him as their 
leader. The analogy of their passage through the 
sea, with the cloud above them, to Christian immer- 
sion, no doubt suggested to Paul the language he has 
employed. TJiere was no literal baptism— and there 
was no pouring or sprinkling. How often is Psalm 
kxvii, 17, referred to, to prove that the Israelites 
had water poured on them. Unfortunately for this 
view of the matter it is said, " The clouds poured 
out water. It was a cloud that Paul refers to— the 
miraculous cloud, the symbol of the Divine presence. 
This cloud had just as much water in it as that on 
which the Savior rode triumphantly to heaven, and 
no more. It will be observed that the Israelites 
were baptized unto Moses, m the cloud and in the sea. 



144 THREE PEASOA-S, 

In literal baptism the person i^ baptized only in water 
The water envelops, surrounds the individual. In 
the case of the Israehtes it onL- ih^ „ / , . , 
_ n , , .^^ '^6 sea (which 

was as a wall on each each siv^\ ^^ i +i i 

/ 1 • 1, u \ . ^ .^ ^^ ^^^^ cloud 

(which was above) to complete i,^ ^ , 

Tj 1 ^ . .-L /i. r envelopment. 

Me who does not see that baptiz • n ,. , 

-^ is iio'urativelv 

applied to the Israelites, because the^ ? ,.. ,/ 

. • X 1 T- ^^^ hterally 

means immerse, is not to be reasonec. • , / 

could be conceived that the miraculous ci , * 

forth water, and that the pouring constx^'^, 

baptism, what had the sea to do in the b.,. 

isma] 
operation? Absolutely nothing: but Paul says, 

fathers were baptized unto Moses in the dozed an., 

the sea, 

9. It is contended that the phrase , ^^ divers washings,^ 
Hebrews, ix, 10, [in the original baptisms) indicates 
more haptisms than one. 

It is a significant fact that Macknight, a Presby- 
terian translator, renders the phrase ** divers immer- 
sions/' The Mosaic law required unclean persons 
"to hathe themselves in water *' — it required, ''unclean 
vessels to he put into water ^^^ and it said, *'all that 
abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the 
water.'' If it is not conceded that these regulations 
involved ''divers immersions,'' it ought not to be 
admitted that the sun rises in the East. Moreover, 
Paul, in the same chapter of Hebrews, uses rantizo^ 
to sprinkle, three times. If by " divers washings " 
he included sprinklings, why did he use a different 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 146 

word altogether, wlien, as every body allows, he 
intended to convey the idea of sprinklinrg? Can 
any Do<3tor of Divinity tell? 

10. Immersion J it is affirmed, is indecent, and dan- 
gerous. 

What, says Richard Watson, in his "Theological 
Institutes,'' which are so highly approved by his 
Methodist brethren? Here is his language: ''With 
all the arrangements of modern times, baptism by 
immersion is not a decent practice: there is not a 
female, perhaps, who submits to it, who has not a 
great previous struggle with her delicacy." Again: 
Even if immersion had been the original mode of 
baptizing, we should, in the absence of any com- 
mand on the subject, direct or implied, have thought 
the church at liberty to accommodate the manner of 
applying water to the body in the name of the Trinity, 
in which the essence of the rite consists, to different 
climates and manners ; but it is satisfactory to dis- 
cover that all the attempts made to impose upon 
Christiar^s a practice repulsive to the feelings, dangerous 
io the health, and offensive to delicacy , is destitute of 
all Scriptural authority, and of really primitive prac- 
tice."* 

Immersion not a ''decent practice T' And yet the 
Methodist Discipline authorizes it ! It authorizes an 
indecent practice, does it ? Ay, more : it recog- 



*Yol. II,pp. 648, 660. 
13 



146 THREE REASONS, 

nizes immersion as valid baptism, and its validity 
must arise from the appointment of Jesus Christ. 
It cannot be valid unless he has appointed it. Will 
Methodists dare saj that' an appointment of hi*=5 is 
not a "decent practice?" Will they say that this 
** practice" is ** repulsive to the feelings," and ** of- 
fensive to delicacy?" It ma}^ be ** repulsive to the 
feelings" of the enemies of Christ to do what he has 
commanded, but it is not to the feehngs of his 
friends; for they have not the spurious ''delicacy" 
referred to. No *' female," it seems, ** submits to" 
immaersion " without a great previous struggle with 
her delicacy!" Ah, indeed ! Baptists who practice 
immersion know nothing of this "great struggle." 
Pedobaptists, however, find it much easier to dis- 
suade *' females " from being immersed bv referrins: 
to the indelicacy of immersion, than by attempting 
to prove, in honorable argument, that immersion 
is contrary to the word of God. The reason is, the 
pride, corruption, and carnalit}^ of the heart, are 
readily enlisted by an artful appeal to " dehcacy," 
'' decency," etc. But may Heaven have mercy on 
the man who makes such an appeal ! 

It is time to speak and write plainly. I say,^ then, 
that the man who sees any thing ''indecent," "in- 
delicate," or "vulgar" in immersion — ay, in the 
immersion of "females," is an "indecent" man. 
He is a man of "indelicate" feelings. The vulgarity 
is in the man — not in the immersion. Such a man 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 147 

Daay write ''Theological Institutes," or, like Dr. Sum- 
mers, he may write a vulnerable book on baptism, 
or, like Dr. Lee, he may make the indecency of im- 
mersion the theme of newspaper articles — but he is 
a vulgar-minded man. Immodest persons often make 
the greatest pretensions to modesty, and the reason 
is they deem it necessary to make pretensions because 
they are so utterly destitute of what they pretend 
to have. As to the charge that ''immersion is 
dangerous" I dispose of it with the remark that, it 
is notoriously untrue. 

In the foregoing extract from Watson, where he 
refers to the " church as at liberty to accommodate 
the manner of applying water," etc., the discerning- 
reader will detect the germ of Popery. Ah ! that 
" liberty to accommodate !" etc. How infinitely mis- 
chievous has been its operation. The "liberty" 
assumed " to accommodate," etc., that is, to deviate 
from the order estabhshed by Christ, resulted in the 
rise of the Romish hierarchy, and has led to the 
formation of every Pedobaptist church under heaven. 
Tliis fact is intensely suggestive. 

I have now examined all the prominent objections 
of Pedobapiists to immersion, and what weight is 
there in those objections ? They are as light as the 
thin air — lighter than vanity. The objections them- 
selves indicate the weakness of the cause they are 
intended to support. An examination of them only 
deepens the conviction of my mind that the immer- 



148 THREE REASONS 

sion in water of a believer is essential to baptism- 
so essential that there is no baptism without it. 



REASON THIRD. 

I A3f A Baptist because Baptists adopt the 
form of church government recognized in the 
INew Testament — that is to say, the congrega- 
tional FORM of government. 

There are three prominent forms of church gov- 
ernment indicated by the terms Episcopacy, Presby- 
terianism, and Congregationahsm. 

Episcopacy recognizes the right of Bishops to pre- 
side over districts of country, and one of its funda- 
mental doctrines is, that a Bishop is officially superior 
to an elder. Of course a modern Bisliop has under 
his charge the *' inferior clergy ;'' for it is insisted 
that the *' ordaining power,*' and '* the right to rule*' 
belong to the Episcopal office. In apostolic times, 
Bishop and Pastor were terms of equivalent import. 
The elders of the church of Ephesus are termed 
(Acts, XX, 24,) overseers — in the original episcopos — 
the word generally translated ** bishop," if, indeed, 
"bishop" may be :5alled a translation. It is so 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 149 

evident from the Scriptures that bishops and elders 
are_ identical that it is the wildest folly to call it in 
question. This, however, is not the place to enlarge 
on this topic. 

Presbyterianism recognizes two classes of elders — 
preaching elders and ruling elders. The pastor and 
ruling elders of a congregation constitute what is 
called the ''Session of the church." The ''Session" 
transacts the business of the church, receives, dis- 
misses, excludes members, etc. From the decisions 
of a Session there is an appeal to Presbytery, which 
is composed of preaching and ruling elders. From 
the action of a Presbytery there lies an appeal to 
Synod; and from the adjudications of Synod there is 
an appeal to the General Assembly, whose decrees 
are both final and irresistible. These Presbyteries, 
Synods, and General Assemblies, are often termed 
"church courts," the "judicatories of the church," 
etc. The friends of Presbyterianism, no doubt, deem 
their form of government most expedient and satis- 
factory; but to believe it Scriptural, must be as diffi- 
cult as to admit the substitution of baptism for cir- 
cumcision. Where is it intimated, in the New Testa- 
ment, that churches composed Presbyteries, and Pres- 
byteries Synods, and Synods General Assemblies, 
and that there is an appeal from the lower to the 
higher "courts?" While Presbyterians, therefore, 
talk and write about the expediencg of their form of 
government, they ought to say nothing of its Scrip- 
13* 



160 THREE REASONS, 

turality. It is unquestionably a better government 
than the Episcopal; but it is not the government 
established by Jesus Christ. It will be readily seen 
that Episcopacy and Presbyterianism imply that many 
local congregations enter representatively into the 
composition of what is termed **the church." Hence 
we often hear of the ** Episcopal Church of the United 
States of America," the ** Presbyterian Church of 
the United States," etc. The local religious com- 
munities in all parts of the nation where Episcopacy 
prevails, are considered as constituting the '* Episco- 
pal Church." So of Presbyterianism. So of Meth- 
odism, North and South. The Baptist Church of the 
United States is a phrase which ought never to be 
used — which can never be used with propriety. There 
are thousands of Baptist churches in the United 
States, but they do not constitute one great Baptist 
Church of the United States. They differ materially 
and fundamentally from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and 
Methodist churches. They are all independent of 
one another, so far as the exercise of governmental 
power is concerned. Every local congregation, united 
in church fellowship, is as complete a church as ever 
existed, and is perfectly competent to do whatever a 
church can of riaht do. No one congregation is at 
liberty to interfere with the affairs of another. Every 
Baptist church is an independent and a pure de- 
mocracy. The idea of independence should be ear- 
nestly cherished, while that of consolidation should 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 161 

be as earnestly deprecated. Agreeably to the view 
now presented, we read in the New Testament of the 
churches of Judea, the churches of Galatia, the churches 
of Macedonia, the churches of Asia, etc., etc., but we 
never read of the church of Judea, the church of Gal- 
atia, etc. There is not the remotest reference to a 
church commensurate with a province, a kingdom, or 
an empire. This view of church extension and con- 
solidation was joos'^apostolic, palpably so. There 
are no people who recognize more fully than Bap- 
tists the fact that the phrase, '' kingdom of Christ," 
implies that he is King — he is Monarch — he is Au- 
tocrat. In ordaining the laws of his kingdom he did 
not allow the impertinent interference of men or 
angels. There is no human or angelic legislation in 
the kingdom of Christ. Churches, organized accord- 
ing to the New Testament model are required to 
execute the laws of Christ. To do this they must of 
course first decide what the laws of Christ are; and 
they are so phiin that there need be no misappre- 
hension. It may be said, therefore, that the churches 
of Christ are invested with judici'al and executive 
power, but they have no legidative power. Ecclesi- 
astical legislation — such as is allowed in manv Pedo- 
baptist organizations — is perfectly abhorrent to the 
spirit of the gospel. Churches are executive de- 
mocracies, organized to carry out the sovereign will 
of their Head. I cannot here resist my inclination 
to express my views in the lant^uage of my friend 



162 THREE REAISONS, 

and brother, Dr. J. M. Peck. Referring to Baptists, 
he says : 

"TJieir theory of church government embraces 
two great and apparently ^opposite principles : 

'' Firift. — That the kinydom of Christ, in its visible 
form on earth, in a ^mre luonarcky. Christ is King 
and Lawgiver. He needs not the aid of man, nor 
wiD he endure human legislation in any form. He 
has not merely given a few vague and general rules, 
and left his people to work out all the discordant 
plans of government that prevail at this moment in 
Christendom. Both by precept and in the inspired 
records of the primitive churches, there are examples 
for every class of cases that necessity ever requires. 
The leyidution in his kingdom is all Divine. 

^^ Secondly. — His kingdom, in its organized state 
of small communities, each managing its own afiairs 
in its ov^n vicinage, is ^ 'jp%re democracy. The 
PEOPLE — THE w^HOLE PEOPLU^v in ,- eacli commuuity, 
choose their own officers — receive and expel mem- 
bers — conduct; #|i .business as a body politic — decide 
on all qucisti'citis* t>f discipline, and observe all the 
institutions of Clirist. Were they to institute a rep- 
reserdatlve, or any other form of government, they 
would depart from the law book, and soon be in- 
volved in as ri);anj.! difficulties as their neighbors,.??' 

* Christian Reposirory, Vol. II, pp. 47, 46. The writer 
knows of no man better qualified to write a book on the 
''Distinctive Trinciples of Baptists" than Rev. J. M. Peck 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. i53 

OONGKEGATIONALISM ANTAGONIZES WITH EpiSCOPACi* 
AND PrESBYTERIANISM, AND DISTINCTLY RECOGNIZES 
THESE TRUTHS I 

1 . That the governmental power is in the hands of 
the people. # ' 

It resides with the laity, in contradistinction from 
Bishops and Elders ; I mean to say that Bishops and 
Elders are incapable of doing anything without the 
concurrence of the laity. 

2. The right of a majority of the members of a 
church to rule. 

When the will of the majority is ascertained, it 
becomes the minority to submit. 

3. That the power of a church cannot he transferred 
or alienated, and that church action is final. 

The power of a church cannot be delegated. 
There may be messengers of a church, but there 
cannot be delegates. No church can empower any 
man, or body of men, to do anything which will im- 
pair its independency, or militate against its demo- 
cratic sovereignty. 

These are highly important principles, and while 
the existence of the ConoTes^ational form of church 
government depends upon their recognition and appli- 
cation,' it is an inquiry of vital moment: Does the 
New. Testament recognize these principles? For if 

Suck a vohime from his pen is a desideratum, and it would 
doubtless hax^a an extensive circulation. It is hoped that hia 
attention will be directed to this subject. 



154 THREE REASONS, 

•t dc»es not, whatever may be said in commendation 
of tliem, they possess no obhgatory force. 1 refer lo 
the New Testament, because it would be uiijustitiable 
to go to the Old, to ascertain the form of government 
established for Ckruiian churches. Jesus Christ, 
in instructing the aposcles how to train the baptized 
disciples, says. *' Teaching them to observe all tilings 
wkataoever 1 have commanded you.^^ He does not say, 
** all things that Aloaes commanded," but *' all things 
whatsoever / have commanded." The apostles en- 
joyed his teachings during his ministry, and the 
** forty days" intervening between his resurrection 
and ascension, he employed in "speaking to them of 
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." It 
may be said that Paul was not with Christ during his 
ministry, and did not enjoy the advantage of the 
*' foriy days' " instruction. This is true, but his de- 
ficiencies, as compared with the other apostles, were 
evidently supplied by direct revelations from Heaven. 
Ic will be seen, therefore, that the apostles them- 
selves, had no discretionary power. They were to 
teach an observance ot" " all things " their Lord and 
Master had " commanded " — no more, no less. Wimt- 
ever they taught under the influence of inspiration, 
must have accorded with the teachinu's of the Savior. 
Whatever they did, as inspired men, may be con- 
sidered as done by him. 

Does the New Testament then inculcate tiie 
found atiun-principle of Congregationalism ; namely, 



/ 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 156 

that the governmental -power of a church is with the 
people J the members? Let us see 5 

It was certainly the province of the apostolic churches 
to admit members into their communion. 

In Rom. xiv, 1, it is written: *' Him that is weak 
in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputa- 
tions.'' What is the meaning of the first clause of 
this verse ? Its import is obviously this : Receive 
into your fellowship, and treat as a Christian, the 
man who is weak in faith." The paraphrase of 
Barnes is: ** Admit to your society or fellowship; 
receive him kindly,'' etc. There is unquestionably a 
command — '* Receive ye." To whom is this com- 
mand addressed ? To Bishops ? It is not. To the 
** Session of the Church," composed of the Pastor 
and '' Ruling Elders ?" No. To whom then ? To 
the very persons to whom th€ Epistle was addressed, 
and it was written *'to all that be in Rome, beloved 
of God, called to the saints," No ingenuity can tor- 
ture this lanp'uaofe into a command p'iven to the 
officers of the church in Rome. The members of 
the church, whose designation was "saints," were 
addressed and commanded to " receive the weak in 
faitli." It was their business to decide who should 
be admitind into their religious community ; and, 
Paul, under the impulses of inspiration, says : "Him 
that is weak in the faith, receive ye." It was, of 
course, their duty to withhold their fellowship from 
those who had no faith. 



156 THREE REASONS, 

The right of the apostolic churches to exclude 
members from their fellowship, evidently implied 
their ricrht to receive members into their fellow- 
ship. It is inconceivable that they had the right to 
exclude, and not the right to receive members. 

Inow proceed to show that the New Testament churches 
had the right to exclude unworthy memherSy and thai 
they exercised that right. 

In 1 Cor. V, 1 — 5, we read as follows : *' It is re- 
ported commonly that there is fornication among 
you, and such fornication as is not so much as named 
among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's 
wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather 
mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be 
taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent 
in body, but present in spirit, have judged already 
as though I were present, concerning him that hath 
so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my 
spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to 
dehver such an one unto Satan for the destruction 
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day 
of the Lord Jesus.'' 

It is worthy of remark, that while Paul **judged" 
that the incestuous man ought to be excluded from 
the church, he did not exclude him. There are those 
in these latter days, who are called ministers of 
Christ, who, if they had lived then, might have ex- 
cluded him, if the Corinthian Church, knowing its 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 157 

prerogative, had not protested against any infringe- 
ment of its sovereignty, by so arbitrary an exercise 
of ministerial power. The apostle Paul, however, 
did not exclude the guilty man. He had no right to 
do so. He did not claim the right. Hence, when 
he said to the ''Churches of Galatia," "I would 
they were cut off who trouble you," he did not cut 
them off, though he desired it to be done, and advised 
that it should -be done. 

It is worthy of notice, too, that the members of 
the Corinthian Church could not, in their individual 
cajjacityy exclude the incestuous man. It was neces- 
sary to their action in the premises, that they should 
be *' gathered together." They must assemble as a 
church, and exemplify the spirit of a pure democracy. 
Thus assembling, **the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ" was to be with them. They were to act by 
his authority, and execute his will ; for he makes it 
incumbent on his churches to administer discipline. 
In the last verse of the chapter referred to, Paul 
says : ** Put away from among yourselves that 
wicked person." Here is a command, given by an 
inspired man, requiring the exclusion of an unwortiiy 
member from the church, at Corinth. To whom was 
the command addressed ? To the official members 
of the church? No, but *'unto the church of God, 
which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in 
Christ Jesus, called to be saints." 
14 



150 THREE REASONS, 

The rio'lit of a church to exclude fiom its com* 
tnunion, disorderly persons, is recognized 2 Thess. 
iii, (>, "Now we command you, brethren, in the 
name of our Lord Jesu^ Christ, that ye withdraw 
yourselves from every brother that walketh dis- 
orderly," etc. This command was addressed **to 
the clmrch of the Thessalonians/' To ** withdraw" 
from a ** disorderly brother," is the same thing as to 
exclude him. There is a cessation of church fellow- 
ship. 

I have not referred to Matthew, xviii, 17, because 
I shall notice it in another place. The reader will 
see, upon examination, that the passage clearly im- 
plies the power of **the church" to perform the act 
of excommunication, by which the member cut ofiF, 
becomes as a '* heathen man, and a publican." 

The ajjostolic churches had the power and the right to 
restore excluded members who gave satisfactory evidences 
of penitence. 

In 2 Cor. ii, 6-8, the ** incestuous man" is agai?* 
referred to, as follows : *' Sufficient to such a man is 
this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So 
that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and 
comCort him, lest perhaps such an one should be 
swallowed up without overmuch sorrow. Wherefore 
I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward 
him." The apostle manages this case with the greatest 
tenderness and delicacy. He refers to the excluded 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 159 

member, without the least refererice to the diigrace' 
fui offense for which he was excluded. *' Sufficient/* 
says he, **is this punishment/' etc. That is, the 
object of the excommunication had been accom- 
plished. The church had shown its determination 
not to connive at sin, and the excluded member had 
become penitent. But the point under consideration 
is, that the apostle advised the restoration of the 
penitent offender. Paul could no more restore him 
to the church than he could exclude him from it, in 
the first instance ; but he says: *'l beseech you that 
ye would confirm your love toward him." The 
power to restore was with the church, and Paul 
solicits an exercise of that power. The great apostle, 
in sayirg, *' I beaeech you,'' etc., bows to the majesty 
of democratic church soveieignty. He virtually ad- 
mits that nothing could be done unless the church 
chose ta-act. 

In thia '-feonnection, one fact should be carefully 
observed: The power of the Corinthian church to 
restore this excluded member, is unquestionable. 
The fact which deserves notice, is thai the power in 
the apostohc churches to restore excluded members, 
imphes the power of receiving members, and albo the 
pgwer of excommunicating. Now, if the New Tes- 
^ment churches had the power and the right to do 
these three things, they must have had the power 
and the right to transact any other business coming 
before them. There surely can be nothing of more 



160 THREE REASONS, 

vital importance to the existence and the interests 
of a church than the reception, exclusion, and resto- 
ration of members. There are no three acts whose 
influence on the organic, structure of a church is so 
great, and these acts the apostolic churches undoubt- 
edly performed. Here I might let the argument for 
the foundation principle of Congregationahsm rest; 
but there is other proof of the New Testament re- 
cognition of that principle. 

In the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles 
there is an account of the election of Matthias to the 
apostleship. He was to succeed Judas, the traitor. 
The most natural inference is that Matthias w^as 
chosen by the *'one hundred and twenty disciples," 
mentioned verse 15. These disciples were, no doubt, 
the church to which the three thousand converts w^ere 
added on the day of Pentecost. The laity must have 
been held in high estimation by Peter, if called on in 
conjunction with the apostles themselves lo elect a 
successor to Judas. 

In Acts, vi, there is reference to the circumstances 
which originMed the deacon's office, and also to the 
manner in which the first deacons were appointed. 
We read as follows: **And in those days, when the 
number of the disciples was multiplied, ther^ arose 
a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebj'ews, 
because their widows were neglected in the daily 
miuisLration. Then the twelve called the multitude 
of the disciples unto them, and said. It is not reason 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 161 

that we should leave the word of God, and serve 
tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you 
seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost 
and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this busi- 
ness. But we will give ourselves continually to 
prayer and the ministry of the word. And the say- 
ng pleased the whole multitude ; and they chose Ste- 
phen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and 
Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and 
Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, whom 
they set before the apostles : and when they had 
prayed, they laid their hands on them.'' 

I have italicised the words in these verses to which 
I call special attention. It will be seen that the apos- 
tles referred the matter of grievance to the multitude 
of the disciples — directed the brethren to look out seven 
men — that the saying pleased the whole multitude — ■ 
that they chose, etc. The democracy^ of the whole 
arrano-ement is as clear as the sun in heaven. 

In Acts, xiv, 23, there is mention made of the or- 
dination of elders in every church, as follows: **And 
when they had ordained them elders in every church, 
and had prayed with fasting, they commended them 
to the Lord, on whom they beheved," Tyndale's 
translation is decidedly better — comes much nearer 
to the imeaning of the orbinal. With the orthog- 

* I use the terms deftnocraey^ democratic, etc., in their literal 
sense, without any reference to their technical application to 
one of the^litical parties of our great nation. 



162 THREE REASONS, 

rapliy modernized it is as follows: '*And when they 
had ordained them seniors by election, in eveiy con- 
gregation, " etc. The word in the original, here 
translaied ordained in oi^r common version, hterally 
means '*to stretch forth the hand,*' as is the custom 
in most Baptist churches when a vbte is taken. T3 n- 
dale well puts in the words, "by election,'' for the 
churches doubtless elected their elders by the popular 
vote. He also states in his ** Rights of the Church,'* 
as quoted by Coleman in his '^Ciuirch without a 
Bishop," p. 63, that the Greek word referred to 
(^cheirotones, from cheir^ the hand, and teino, to extend 
01 stretch forth) is interpreted (as he interprets it) 
by Erasmus, Beza, Diodati, and those who translated 
the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English 
Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out 
the words by election, as well as the marginal notes, 
which affirm that the apostles did not thrust pastors 
into the church through a lordly superiority, but chose 
and placed them there by the voice of the congregation.^^ 

Every one can readily imagine why the '"Episcopal 
correction " was made. A faithful translation would 
give the laity an influence which the ''Episcopal 
clergy" are of course unwilling to allow. Tiie word 
cheirotones is used but twice in the New Testament — 
in the passage under consideration, and in 2 Cor. viii, 
19. In the latter it is translated *' chosen" — that is, 
*' by the churches." 

The word in Acts xiv, 23. certainly means that 



WHT I AM A BAPTIST. 163 

elders were chosen, appointed, not without, but by 
means of the suffrages of the churches. Barnes well 
remarks: **Itis said, indeed, that Paul and Barna- 
bas did this. But probably all that is meant by it is, 
that they presided in the assembly when the choice 
was made. It does not mean that they appointed 
them without consulting the church; but it evidently 
means that they appointed them in the usual way 
of appointing officers, by the suffrages of the people.*' 

In view of all these facts, I argue that, according 
to the New Testament, the officers of a church are 
chosen by the church. No one church has the right 
to choose officers for another. No combination of 
churches has the right. Every church is as inde- 
pendent in its action as if it were the only church in 
the woj.il. Every church is an executive democracy , 
whose business it is to carry out the will of hei 
Divine Head. 

In support of the fundamental principle of Con- 
gregationalism, the following facts are stated : The 
** whole church'' — the ** brethren*' — are named in 
connection with the *' apostles and elders." Acts, xv, 
22, 23. ** Then pleased it the apostles and elders, 
with the whole church, to send chosen men,'* etc. 
** And they wrote letters by them after this manner: 
The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greet 
ing," etc. The laity of the church at Jerusalem 
acted as well as the apostles and elders. 

The churches of apostolic times sent forth minis- 



164 THREE REASONS, 

ters on missionary tours. When Antioch received 
the word of God, the church at Jerusalem *'seni 
forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch," 
etc. Acts, xi, 22. His labors were successful— 
**much people was added to the Lord" — and at a 
subsequent period the church in Antioch sent out 
Saul and Barnabas, who made a long journey — per- 
formed much labor — returned and reported to the 
church '* all that God had done with them.'* Acts, 
xiii, 1-3; xiv, 26, 27. With what deferential re- 
spect did these ministers of the gospel treat the 
church tha,t sent them forth ! The apostles, so far 
from exercising lordship over the churches, did not 
control their charities. This is seen in Acts, v, 4; 
xi, 29, 30; 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2; 2 Cor. ix, 7. The 
churches selected messengers to convey their chari- 
ties. See 1 Cor. xvi, 3; 2 Cor. viii, 18, 19; Phil, ii, 
25; iv, 18. 

A second principle of Congregationalism, to which 
I have referred, is the right of a majority of the mem- 
hers of a church to rule, in accordance with the laws of 
Christ. In 2 Cor. ii, 6, it is written: ** Sufficient to 
such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of 
many." A literal translation of the words rendered 
''of many," would be '*by the more" — that is, by 
the majority. McKnight's rendering is, *' by the 
greater number." If, as has been shown, the gov- 
ernmental power of a church is with the members, it 
follows that a majoiity must rule. That is to say 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 165 

either the majority or minority must; govern. But it 
is absurd to refer to the rule of the minority. That 
a majority must rule is so plain a principle of Con- 
gregationalism, and so plain a principle of common 
sense, that it is needless to dwell upon it. 

A third truth, as already stated, recognized by the 
Oongregational form of church government is, thai 
the power of a church cannot be transferred or alien- 
ated, and that church action is final. 

The church at Corinth could not transfer her 
authority to the church at Philippi, nor could the 
church at Antioch convey her power to the church 
of Ephesus. Neither could all the apo-stolic churches 
delegate their power to an association, or synod, con- 
ference or convention. The power of a church is 
manifestly inahenable ; and if this be true, church 
action is final. That there is no tribunal hioher 
than the church is evident from Matthew, xviii, 15- 
17. The Savior lays down a rule for the adjustment 
of private diflPerences among brethren. ** If thy 
brother shall trespass against thee,'' etc. If the 
offender, when told of his fault, does not give sat- 
isfaction, the offended party is to take with him *'one 
or two more, that in the mouth of two or three wit- 
nesses every word may be established." But, if the 
offender *' shall neglect to hear them," what is to be 
done? '^Tell it to the church.' What church? 
The aggregate body of the redeemed? This is 
absurd. I ask again, What church ? Evidently the 



166 THREE REASONS, 

particular congregation to which the parties belong. 
If the offender does not hear the church, what then? 
Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a pub- 
lican." But can there ^ot be an appeal to an asso- 
ciation, or presbytery, or conference? No. There 
is no appeal. Shall an association, or presbytery, or 
conference, put the offender back in church fellow- 
ship, when the church, by its action, classed him 
with heath*^ns and pubhcans? This is too prepos- 
terous. What kind of fellowship would it be? A 
church, by excluding a member, declares that mem- 
ber unworthy of fellowship. Will it be asked, what 
is to be done if the action of a church does not give 
satisfaction to all concerned ? I answer, do what is 
done when the action of a Presbyterian General 
Assembly, or Methodist General Conference, or an 
Episcopal General Convention, does not give satis- 
faction. There must be a stopping-place. There 
must be final action. Baptists say, with the New 
Testament before them, that the action of each 
local congregation of believers is final. Pedubaptists, 
with the exception of Independents and Congrega- 
tionalisis, deny the ''finality'' of church action. Who 
are right ? Let those who oppose the Baptist form 
of church government show anywhere in the New 
Testament the remotest allusion to an appeal from 
the decision of a church to any other tribunal. It 
cannot be done. There were no tribunals in apos- 
tolic times analogous to modern presbyteries, synods, 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 61 

general assemblies, conferences, etc. Let those who 
affirm that there were such tribunals adduce the 
proof. On them rests the burden of proof. But 
to furnish this proof is as difficult as for ** a camel 
to go through the eye of a needle." 

Baptists have ever regarded every church as com- 
plete in itself, independent, so far as its government 
is concerned, of every other church under heaven. 
They have watched with jealous eye all encroach- 
ments on church sovereignty. For their sentiments 
on baptism — its subjects and its action — and their 
views of church government, they have been perse- 
cuted, tortured, put to death. Their blood has 
flowed like water. From their ranks have been 
taken myriads of martyrs, who, having endured 
'* much tribulation," are now before the throne of 
God. But the principles of the Baptists still Hve, 
and will live; for they are indestructible. Fire, 
sword, prisons, racks, gibbets! what say you? If 
these principles were destructible, would ye not have 
destroyed them long since, and have blotted out 
'* their memorial" from under heaven? They are 
divinely vital principles : they will not, they cannot 
die. 

The view which I have presented of the inde- 
pendence of the apostolic churches is so obviously in 
accordance with the facts in the case, that distin- 
guished Pedobaptists have been forced to concede it. 
Hence, the learned Mosheim, a Lutheran, and a bitter 



168 THREE REASONS, 

enemy of Baptists, speaking of the first century, 
says : *' The churches, in those early times, were 
entirely independent, none of them being subject to 
any foreign jurisdiction^ but each governed by its 
own rulers and its own laws ; for, though the churclies 
founded by the apostles had this particular deference 
shown to them, that they were consulted in difficult 
and doubtful cases, yet they had no juridical author- 
ity, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the 
least right to enact laws for them."* 

Archbishop Whately, a dignitary of the Church 
of England, referring to the apostolic churches, says : 
*' They were each a distinct, independent community 
on earth, united by the common principles on which 
they were founded, and by their mutual agreement, 
affection and respect; but not having any one recog- 
nized Head on earth, or acknowledging any sover- 
eignty of one of these societies over others.'' Again: 
"A CHURCH and a diocese seem to have been for 
a considerable time co-extensive and identical. And 
each church or diocese, (and consequently each 
superintendent,) though connected with the rest by 
ties of faith, and hope, and charity, seems to have 
been (as has been already observed) perfectly inde- 
pendent, as far as regards any power of control." f 

This is strong testimony from a Lutheran and an 



* Maclaine's Mosheim, Baltimore Edition, Vol. I, p. 39, 
t Kingdom of Christ, Carter's Edition, pp. 36, 44, 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 16J> 

Episcopalian. They would have given a different 
representation of the matter, if they could have done 
so consistently with truth. They virtually condemned 
their denominational organizations in writing what I 
have quoted. I might refer to Neander, Dr. Bar- 
row, Dr. Burton, and I know not how many other 
Pedobaptists, who have expressed themselves, in sub- 
stance, as Mosheim and Whately have done; but it is 
needless. I am not dependent on the testimony of 
church historians. I make my appeal to the New 
Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If 
all the church histories in the world said that the 
monarchical or aristocratic form of church govern- 
ment was maintained from the death of the apostle 
John onward, I would not be moved by it, as long as 
the New Testament represents every church as a 
democracy fully competent to transact its own busi- 
ness. *' To the law and to the testimony." 

Americans reject with scorn the idea of the divine 
right of kings. They indorse the doctrines of that 
sublimest of uninspired documents — the *' Declara- 
tion of Independence." They say, *' all men are 
created free and equal." One man has as much 
right to be Ejng or President as another — that is, 
no one has the right till the people confer it. The 
people are the depositary of power. Now, if all men 
are created equal, can it be supposed that Jesus Christ, 
in giving his churches a form of government, contra- 
vened the great principle recognized in creation ? Is 
15 



170 THREE REASONS, 

this supposition reasonable? Certainly it is not. 
What says Christ, (Matthew, xxiii, 8; Luke, xxii, 
24, 25, 26,) **Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is 
your Master, even Christ^; and all ye are brethren." 
"And there was also a strife among them, which of 
them should be accounted the greatest. And he said 
unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lord- 
ship over them; and they that exercise authority 
upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall 
not be so." The Redeemer suppressed all the 
risings of ambition in the minds of his disciples — 
assuring them that they were brethren — on an equal- 
ity — and positively forbidding everything like the 
exercise of lordship and authority. Christianity re- 
duces none of its votaries to ciphers. It teaches 
them all that they are immortal creatures — person- 
ally responsible to God. It attaches importance and 
dignity to man ; for, while it deeply humbles him 
before God, it does not degrade him before his fel- 
low-man. Far, very far from it. Those know little 
of the genius of Christianity who tamely submit to 
ministerial domination, whether among Papists or 
Protestants. But enough. 

The view of church government given in the pre- 
ceding pages I sincerely believe accords with the 
teachings of the New Testament. Baptists maintain 
this form of government. Therefore I am a Bap- 
tist. I might give other reasons for being a Bap- 
tist, but in the discourse which has been expanded 



WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 171 

into this treatise, I presented only the three on 
which I have now dwelt. I have chosen to con- 
fine myself to the points discussed in that discourse — 
namely, the subjects and the action of Baptism, and 
the form of church government. Whatever others 
may think of my Three Reasons for being a Baptist, 
they are, to my mind, amply satisfactory ; and here 
I lay down my pen. 



APPENDIX. 



FOURTH REASON. 

BAPTISTS ALONE SCRIPTURALLY OBSERVE THE LORD'S 

SUPPER. 

Several highly-esteemed brethren have urged me 
to give a Fourth reason why I am a Baptist, and to 
let that reason have reference to Communion at the 
Lord's Table. They are of opinion that this is a 
subject strangely misunderstood by multitudes, and 
that, what is generally, though improperly termed 
" close communion,*' is made, by Pedobaptists, the 
basis of their most effective appeal to popular preju- 
dice against Baptists. 

This is unquestionabl}' true. How often do our 
opponents, when they find ihere is nothing in the 
baptismal controversy to give them "aid and com- 
fort,'' exclaim, with a kind of pious horror, against 
our selfishness, uncharitableness, and bigotry in 
refusing to commune with them in the sacred Sup 
per ! They tell us we shall all commune together in 
Heaven, and therefore ouo-ht to commune too-etlier 
on earth ; strangely forgetting that whatever may be 



ON COMMUNION. 173 

the regulations of the heavenly state, the word of 
God alone is our guide during our earthly pilgrimage. 
He who would make the arrangements qf the eartlily 
economy conform to those of the heavenly, must of 
necessity nullify everything in those arrangements 
peculiar to earth. Why, then, not discontinue an 
observance of the ordinance of baptism altogether? 
for there will be no baptism in heaven. Why not 
cease to pray ? for prayer is not a celestial exercise. 
Why not give up ** pure and undefiied religion,'* 
which, in its practical development, leads us to '* visit 
the fatherless and widows in their affliction?'* for no 
manifestations of kindness to the afflicted and bereaved 
will be called for in heaven. Ah, why not give up 
''communion" itself? For as ** flesh and blood 
cannot inherit the kingdom of God," the use of the 
sacramental emblems would be unsuited to that 
kingdom. 

It is to be deeply regretted that so many erroneous 
views are entertained of communion at the Lord's 
Table. Many pervert the ordinance from its original 
design, and many displace it from its primitive posi- 
tion. In some places it seems almost to be regarded 
as a manifestation of Christian love, rather than a 
commemoration of the Saviour's death — as a practical 
illustration of the union of difterent religious denom- 
inations, rather than a solemn celebration of the suf- 
ferings of the Crucified One. Here I raise my voice, 
and sav with strongest emphasis, 
I5* 



174 APPENDIX. 

I AM A Baptist, because there is among Baptists 
ALONE, A Scriptural observance op the Lord's 
Supper. 

Roman Catholics believing, as they profess to do, 
the doctrine of transubstantiation, insist that the bread 
and wine of the Lord's Supper are chang-ed into tiie 
real body and blood of Jesus Christ. According to 
this view the Saviour, in the presence of his disciples, 
took his veritable body into his hands, and broke it 
and said, **eat ye all of it." Nor is this all: he 
poured forth his literal blood and said, *' Drink ye all 
of it !" He that can believe this has credulity enough 
to be a Romanist. When Jesus said, **This is my 
body," ** this is my blood ;" he evidently meant, 
'* This represents my body," " this represents my 
blood." The same form of expression is common in 
the Old Testament and in the New. For example, 
Joseph, in the interpretation of Pharaoh's dream, 
said, ** The seven good kine are seven ears ; and the 
seven good ears are seven years," etc. How seven 
years ? Literally ? Impossible. The seven good kine 
represented seven years, etc. This is plain. The same 
form of expression is used in the NewTestament. Jesus, 
in expounding the parable of the ** Tares and Wheat,* 
said, '' He that soweth the good seed is [represents] 
the Son of Man ; the field is [represents] the world ; 
the good seed are [represent] the children of the 
kingdom ; but the tares are [represent] the children 
of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is 



ON COMMUNION. 175 

[represents] the devil ; the harvest is [represents] 
the end of the world; and the reapers are [represent] 
the angels." 

If we understand the verbs **is" and **are," in 
the foregoing expressions, literally, not one of those 
expressions is true. No field can literally be the 
world ; nor can any literal harvest be the end of the 
world ; but a field can represent the world, and a 
harvest can denote the end of the world. It is equally 
evident that "bread'' cannot be the real body of 
Jesus Christ, and that **wine" cannot be his blood, 
but bread can represent his body, and wine can repre- 
sent his blood. Such a representation we have in the 
Sacred Supper. It follows, therefore, that the posi- 
tion of Romanists is utterly untenable. 

The Lutherans, of all the Protestants, differ least 
from the Romish Hierarchy in regard to communion, 
for tiiey maintain that **the body and blood of Christ 
are materially present in the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper, though in an incomprehensible manner." 
This is termed **consubstantiation," and is as incred- 
ible as Romish ** transubstantiation." Alas, that 
Luther's Reformation was in several respects sadlj'' 
deficient. 

Episcopalians and Methodists would perhaps think 
it unkind, were it intimated that their ** sacramental 
services" indicate their ecclesiastic descent from 
Rome. But it is even so. Hence the communicant, 
m rtictiiving the bread, is thus addressed: '* The Body 



176 APPENDIX. 

of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given, for thee, 
preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life :'* 
and in receiving the cup hears from the officiating 
** clergyman '* this lan^ruage : *' The blood of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve 
thy body and soul unto everlasting life/* These ex- 
tracts I have made from the ** Book of Common 
Prayer/' I find the same language in the Meiliodist 
** Discipline.'' The terms soul and body, however, 
are made to change places. I do not charge Epis- 
copalians and Methodists with believing in transub- 
stantiation or consubstantiation, but if they do not, 
they ought to modify the language I have quoted. 
There are perhaps thousands and tens of thousands 
among them who do not know^ why they kneel at the 
** communion." They are ignorant of the origin of 
the custom. They are not aware that when the 
Romish sentiment of transubstantiation began to pre- 
vail, the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper being 
considered the real body and blood of Christ, were 
regarded as suitable objects of adoration. Hence the 
superstitious kneeling of Romanists at the **holy 
communion." Episcopalians, abandoning *' Mother 
liodie" in the reign of Henry VHI, retained ihe 
practice of kneeling, while Methodists have inherited 
it from Episcopalians. All Protestants ouglu to re- 
pudiate it on account of its Romish, and, I may add, 
its idolatrous origin. For he who worships *' bread 
and wine" is as manifestly guilty of idolatry as he 



ON COMMUNIOX. 177 

who worships a graven image. There is, too, some- 
thing incongruous in kneeling at the Lord's Supper. 
The incongruity will remain as long as it is the custom 
among western nations to sit, and among eastern 
nations to recline at supper. 

The manner in which Presbyterians celebrate the 
death of Christ is less objectionable than that of 
Episcopalians and Methodists. Presbyterians, how- 
ever, are accustomed to speak of Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper as ** sealing ordinances." If this 
phrase is to be understood in its obvious signification, 
it conveys an unscriptural idea. Christians are said 
in the New Testament to be *' sealed by the Holy 
Spirit to the day of redemption,'* to be '* sealed with 
that Holy Spirit of promise," etc. The Spirit of God, 
whose agency is indispensable to the formation of 
Christian character, is the great Sealer, and the 
sealing process is manifestly a prerequisite to a par- 
ticipation in the ordinances of the gospel. The seal- 
ing immediately succeeds faith, as we learn from 
Ephesians i, 13. 

Tiie doctrine of Baptists has ever been, that the 
Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance, to be observed 
as a memorial of the death of Christ. The bread 
broken represents his body crucified — the wine poured 
forth represents his blood shed on Calvary. The 
lanouaoe of the Institutor of the sacred feast, the 
san»e night in which he was betrayed, was : ** This 
do in remembrance of me." Paul says to the Corin- 



178 APPENDIX. 

thians, ** As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come/' 
Hero the intimation is, that the death of Christ will 
be commemorated till he comes the second time with- 
out sin unto salvation. We learn, also, that in the 
sacred Supper we do not show the birth, or burial, or 
resurrection, or ascension, or glorification of our 
Lord, but his death. If ever the tragedy of Calvary 
should engross the thoughts of the Christian, to the 
exclusion of every other topic, it is when he sits at 
the table of the Lord. Then the death of his Re- 
deemer should monopolize all the power of memory. 

" Remember thee ! thy death, tliy shame ; 
The griefs which ihou didst bear ! 
0, Memory, leave no other name 
But his recorded there." 

Some will perhaps say, that in the Lord's Supper, 
we express our Christian fellowship for our fellow- 
communicants. This is done only in an indirect and 
incidental manner. Our communion, according to 
Paul, is the communion of the body and the blood of 
Christ. 

Baptists, with comparatively few exceptions, have ever 
considered Baptism a prerequisite to the Lord's Table. 
They have so regarded it, because they have recog- 
nized its indispensableness to church membership. 
They have reasoned in this way : The Lord's Sup- 
per is an ordinance, to be observed exclusively by the 
members of a visible Church of Christ. None can 



ON COMMUNION 179 

be members of a visible church of Christ without 
Baptism. Therefore, Baptism is a prerequisite to 
Communion at the Lord's Table. A refusal on the 
part of Baptists to commune with Pedobaptists, has 
grown out of the fact, that the latter have ever been 
considered by the former as unbaptized, and conse- 
quently without a scriptural church membership. 

Even the celebrated Robert Hall, who advocated 
the intercommunion of Baptists and Pedobaptists 
with an eloquence and an energy of argumentation 
rarely to be found in the annals of controversy, does 
not hesitate to express the opinion that Pedobaptists 
are unbaptized. Hence he says : 

** We certainly make no scruple of informing a 
Pedobaptist candidate, that we consider him as un- 
baptized, and disdain all concealment upon the sub- 
ject." Again, ** If we join with those whom we 
are obliged to consider as unbaptized, they unite 
with persons who, in their judgment, repeat an 
ordinance which ought to be performed but once, 
nullify a Christian institute, and deprive their chil- 
dren of the benefit of a salutary rite." — See Hall's 
Works, Vol. i, pp. 455, 456. 

But while Mr. Hall considered Pedobaptists unbap- 
tized, he insisted on their right as unbaptized persons, 
to come to the Lord's Table. He did not admit baptism 
to be a prerequisite to communion. Had he conceded 
this (a point almost universally conceded by Baptists 
and Pedobaptists,) he would not have written hi» 



180 APPENDIX. 

** Terms of Communion '' at all. I quote from him 
as follows : 

** We are far, however, from insinuating a doubt 
on the obligation of belieyers to submit to th.e ordi- 
nance of baptism, or of its being exclusively appro- 
priated to such ; but we affirm, that in no part of 
Scripture is it calculated as a preparative to the Lord's 
Supper, and that this view of it is a mere fiction of 
the imagination.'* 

In another place, referring to Mr. Kinghorn, he 
savs : 

** This author had informed us at the distance of 
a few lines, that the Pedobaptists in general, believe 
that none ought to come to the Lord's Table, who 
are not baptized. If this is correct, we may indeed 
easily conceive of their being oflfended with us for 
deeming them unbaptized ; but how our refusal to 
admit them to communion should become the subject 
of debate, is utterly mysterious." — Works, Vol. i, 
pp. 307, 402. 

To demolish all that Robert Hall ever wrote in 
favor of *' Mixed Communion," it is only necessary 
to show the scriptural priority of Baptism to the Lord's 
Supper. And surely it is not difficult to do this. 
That baptism was first instituted, is a significant fact. 
No one will deny that John, the harbinger of Christ, 
baptized multitudes, and that J^sus, through his 
disciples (John iv, I, 2), baptized more than John, 
before the institution of the Lord's Supper. It is 



ON COMMUNION. 181 

morally certain that those present at its institution, 
the night of the betrayal, had been baptized. Jesus 
himself, had been baptized, and it is too much for 
credulity itself to believe, that hfe selected unbaptized 
persons as his apostles. Does the subsequence of 
the Lord's Supper, in its original appointment to 
Baptism, mean nothing? But it has been argued by 
many, that Christian baptism was not instituted till 
Jesus gave the commission (Matthew xxviii, 18, 
19) ; and on this ground, the priority of Baptism to 
Communion, is denied by Robert Hall. The argu- 
ment, if I understand it, is, that the epithet Christian^ 
cannot with propriety be applied to the baptisms ad- 
ministered before the final commission of Christ wajs 
given, because those baptisms were performed before 
the establishment of the Christian economy, and 
therefore belonged to a different dispensation. This 
argument evidently proves too much. For, if the 
baptisms which preceded the resurrection and last 
commission of Christ are to have no authoritative 
influence as precedents, because administered before 
the ushering in of the Christian economy, for the 
same reason, the Lord's Supper must have none, as'it 
was instituted before the Redeemer said to his 
apostles, ** Go, teach all nations," etc. If there 
could be no Christian Baptism before the resurrection 
of Christ, because his death had to occur to abolish 
the old and introduce the new economy, then it 
must follow that the Lord's Supper is not a Christian 
16 



« 



.82 APPENDIX. 

ordinance ! Why ? Because the argument I am 
exposing, assumes that nothing done before the 
resurrection and final commission of the Redeemer, 
can be properly termed C/iristian. If, then, accord- 
ing to this logic, the inapplicability of the epithet 
Christian to the baptisms which preceded Christ's 
resurrection, disproves the priority of Baptism to the 
Lord's Supper, the inapplicability of the same epi- 
thet to the Lord's Supper, as celebrated before his 
resurrection, disproves the priority of the Lord's 
Supper to Baptism. Thus the logic, if it accom- 
plishes anything, proves that neither ordinance is 
prior to the other, and consequently, that they ought 
to be simultaneously administered — which is impos- 
sible, and the impossibility shows the logic to be 
sophistry. 

In opposition to the view just referred to, I affirm 
that the ministry of John the Baptist was ** the be- 
ginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ " — that ** the 
law and the prophets were until John" — and that 
from the commencement of his labors in the wilder- 
ness of Judea, '* the kingdom of God was preached." 
John did not belong to the Jewish dispensation ; for 
that dispensation, denoted by "the law and the pro- 
phets," continued only till he came. There was no- 
thing in the regulations of the Jewish economy that 
made it his duty to preach repentance to the people 
and baptize the penitent. Will any man say thai 
baptism, as administered by John, was an ordinance 



ON COMMUNION. 183 

of the Mosaic economy ? If so, why did the Scribes, 
Pharisees, Priests and Levites regard it as an innova- 
tion ? That they did so regard it, appears from the 
question, ** Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not 
that Christ, nor Ehjah, neither that prophet?" If 
his baptism had not been a new thing, this question 
would have been precluded; Those who propounded 
it, were evidently under the impression that the 
Messiah, or Elijah, or ** that prophet," would be jus- 
tifiable in administering this new rite, but as John 
disclaimed being any one of the three (for though in 
one sense, he was Elijah, yet it was not in their sense, 
and to this sense, his denial is to be confined), they 
did not understand by what authority he introduced 
so striking an innovation in Jewish customs. 

John, as a preacher and baptizer, did not belong 
to the Mosaic dispensation. And the hypothesis of 
some, who say he belonged to an economy interme- 
diate between the Mosaic and the Christian, is utterly 
untenable. There is in neither the Old nor the New 
Testament the remotest allusion to an intermediate 
dispensation. If there be, let it be shown. 

The only consistent and correct view of the matter 
is, that John introduced, and belonged to, the Gospel 
dispensation. Hence his baptism was Gospel Bap- 
tism. If any one chooses to deny that it was Christian 
Baptism because it is not so termed, the denial may 
be so enlarged as to embrace all the baptisms of the 
■New Testament ; for the epithet Christian, is not 



} 84 APPENDIX. 

applied to one of them. But who will run into such 
an absurdity ? 

The ministry of John having been the beginning 
of the Gospel, it follows that Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper are Gospel ordinances. It follows, more- 
over, that Baptism is first in order of time, nor is its 
priority accidental, but designed and significant. 
John came to prepare a people for the Lord. The 
Lord came, and having personally submitted to that 
ordinance which had symbohcally separated that 
people from others, he took possession of them. All 
his teachings indicated that they were brought under 
the reign of a new order of things. He instituted 
tlie sacred Supper, an ordinance exclusively Gospel, 
of which the world had never heard before. And 
surely, if we learn anything from the example of 
Christ in this matter, it is that none but baptized 
persons are ehgible to seats at the Lord's Table. 

But while firmly believing that John's was a 
Gospel ministry and a Gospel Baptism, I could wave 
all this, and making Christian Baptism coeval with 
the last commission of Christ to the apostles, I 
might then show the unavoidable priority of Baptism 
to Communion. Let us see : I go at once to the 
commission, which reads : *' All power is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 



ON COMMUNION. 185 

have commanded you/' Every scholar knows that 
the Greek term translated *' teach," means disciple 
or make disciples. 

Disciples to Christ were to be made through the 
preaching and teaching of the apostles. This is 
plain. The discipling process was first, and v^hen 
completed, the baptismal act was to be performed. 
Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them, etc. Now^ 
according to this commission, it is evident that the 
process of discipleship is to be so immediately followed 
by the administration of Baptism, as to leave no 
room for an observance of the Lord's Supper to 
intervene. Baptism is certainly the first thing after 
a person is discipled to Christ. It is the believer's 
first public duty. It is the first external manifesta- 
tion of his internal piety. It is an open avowal of 
allegiance to Christ. It is therefore, according to 
the commission, inevitably prior to the Lord's Supper, 
an observance of which, is no doubt included in the 
expression — ** Teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you." The baptized 
disciples are to be taught to observe all things, etc. 
And I deny that, under this commission, the minister 
of Christ is under obligation to say anything about 
the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized. The baptized 
disciples are to be instructed. How then can the 
Lord's Supper precede baptism, when the commis- 
sion enjoins the mention of it only to the baptized ? 

But how^ did the apostles understand and execute 
16* 



1 86 APPENDIX. 

this commission ? This is a question of capital im- 
port in this discussion. On the day of Pentecost, 
Peter said to the convicted Jews, Repent, and be 
baptized, etc. The baptism was to succeed the re- 
pentance. There is no intimation that the Lord's 
Supper was to come between. And it is added — 
*' Then they that ghidly received his w^ord were 
baptized ^ * ^ * And they continued steadfastly in 
the apostles' doctrines, and fellowship, and in break- 
ing of bread, and in prayer." The *' breaking of 
bread," certainly refers to the Lord's Supper, and it 
«7as preceded by baptism. When Philip went down 
to Samaria and preached, the people believed, and 
** were baptized, both men and women." The nar- 
rative plainly indicates that Baptism, and not the 
Lord's Supper, immediately followed the people's 
belief of what Philip preached. When the Ethi- 
opian avowed his faith in Jesus Christ, Philip at 
once baptized him. There was no celebration of the 
Lord's Supper before they left the chariot and de- 
scended into the water. When Paul and Silas at 
the hour of midnight, preached to the jailer and his 
family and they believed, what was then done ? Did 
they commune at the Lord's Table ? No, but he and 
all his were baptized straightway. 

Thus does it appear that the apostles and primitive 
ministers understood the commission, as enjoining 
Baptism before the Lord's Supper. They have left 
an instructive example, which wa are not at liberi!:y 



ON COMMUNION. 187 

to disregard. I boldly affirm, that the whole tenor 
of the New Testament indicates the priority of Bap- 
tism to Communion. Nothing, as it seems to me, is 
plainer. It is strange that so great a man as Robert 
Hall, overlooked it. That he did overlook it, appears 
from the following language : *' If we supposed 
there were a necessary, unalterable connection be- 
tween the two positive Christian institutes, so that 
none were qualified for communion, who had not been 
previously baptized, we could not hesitate for a mo- 
ment respecting the refusal of Pedobaptists, without 
renouncing the principles of our denomination.'' — 
Vol. i, p. 403. 

I assert, with the New Testament before me, that 
therein ** a necessary, unalterable connection between 
the two positive Christian institutes," and that none 
are ** qualified for communion '' who are not first 
baptized. A specimen of the proof establishing these 
points, has been presented. Nor do I see the neces- 
sity of elaborating the subject at greater length. 

I would, before I proceed to other matters, call 
special attention to the fact that Mr. Hall admits, if 
baptism necessarily precedes communion, then, for 
us Baptists to commune with Pedobaptists, would be 
to renounce the principles of our denomination. This 
is undeniably true. ^ Hence, when Pedobaptists insist 
that we shall commune with them, they virtually ask 
us to give up our distinctive principles and cease to 
be Baptists ! Their invitation really amounts to this. 



188 APPENDIX. 

the distinguished Robert Hall, a ** mixed communion" 
Baptist, being judge. Were I disposed to indulge in 
irony, I would say : What superlative modesty 
What perfect exemption from the spirit of arrogance ! 
What a disposition on the part of our opponents to 
treat us as they would wish to be treated ! 

It may be supposed by some, that I have needlessly 
exposed the sophistry of Robert Hall, which, to them, 
appears shallow enough for any one to detect and 
repudiate. I beg leave to say that the name of Hall 
occupies a conspicuous place in the annals of great- 
ness, and that there is some danger lest the splen- 
dor of his fame should give weight to sophistry 
which, in inferior men, would be considered lighter 
than vanity. In addition to this it is proper to say, 
that Pedobaptists make frequent reference to Mr. 
Hall as a man of liberal views, though they, by no 
means, adopt his views, but only think them worthy 
of the adoption of Baptists. After all, the great 
body of the Baptist denomination is unmoved by Mr. 
Hall's reasonings on communion, and can only regret 
that a pen so able and eloquent was not more worthily 
employed. 

Pedobaptists themselves concede the precedence 
of Baptism to the Lord's Supper. Dr. Wall, in his 
history of Infant Baptism, Part II, chap, ix, expresses 
himself in strong terms as follows : ** No church ever 
gave the communion to any persons before they were 
baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were 



ON COMMUNION. 189 

held, none ever maintained that any persons should 
partake of the communion before they were bap- 
tized." 

Peter King, Lord High Chancellor of England, in 
his Primitive Church, p. 196, (this work is now pub- 
lished by the Methodists,) says: ** Baptism was 
always precedent to the Lord's supper: and none 
were admitted to receive the eucharist till they were 
baptized. This is so obvious to every man that it 
needs no proof: if any one doubts it, he may find it 
clearly asserted in the second Apology of Justin 
Martyr, p. 97." 

Dr. Doddridge, in his Miscellaneous Works, p. 
510, remarks : ** It is certain that Christians in gen- 
eral have always been spoken of, by the most ancient 
fathers, as baptized persons. And it is also certain 
that, as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity 
extends, no unbaptized person received the Lord's 
Supper." 

Mr. Hibbard, a Methodist preacher and writer of 
considerable distinction, belonging to the Genessee 
Conference, New York, in his work on ** Christian 
Baptism," thus expresses himself: ''It is but just to 
remark, that in one principle the Baptist and Pedo- 
baptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting 
from Communion at the table of the Lord, and in 
denying the rights of church fellowship to all, who 
have not been baptized. Valid baptism they con- 



190 APPENDIX 

sider as essential to constitute visible church member- 
ship. This, also, we hold. The only question then 
that here divides us is, what is essential to valid bap- 
tism ? The Baptists, in passing a sweeping sentence 
of disfranchisement upon ail other Christian churclies, 
have only acted upon a principle held in common 
with all other Christian churches, viz : That baptism 
is essential to church membership. They have denied 
our baptism, and, as unbaptized persons, we have 
been excluded from their table. That they greatly 
err in their views of Christian baptism, we, of course, 
believe. But according to their views of baptism, 
they certainly are consistent in restricting this, their 
communion. We would not be understood as passing 
a judgment of approval upon their course ; but we 
say their views of baptism force them upon the 
ground of strict communion, and herein they act 
upon the same principles as other churches. They 
admit only those whom they deem baptized persons, 
to the communion table. Of course, they must be 
their own judges as to what baptism is. It is evident 
that, according to our views, we can admit them to 
our communion ; but with their views of baptism, it 
is equally evident, they can never reciprocate the 
courtesy; and the charge of close communion. -i^ nO 
more applicable to the Baptists than to us ; inasmuch 
as the question of church membership is determined 
by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protes- 



ON COMMUNION. 191 

tant churches — so far I mean, as the present subject 
is concerned, i. e.y it is determined by valid baptism." 
Hibbard's '' Christian Baptism." 

To this extract from Mr. Hibbard's work, I call 
the special attention of Methodists. It exhibits a 
spirit of controversial candor and fairness, not often 
witnessed in the discussion of the Communion ques- 
tion. It explodes the charge of Baptist bigotry and 
exclusiveness in reference to communion, and estab- 
lishes the fact that the point in dispute between 
Baptists and others, is not about close communion, but 
close baptism. The controversy is entirely and in- 
tensely baptismal. 

I think it may now be considered as fully settled, 
that Pedobaptists as well as Baptists, regard Baptism 
as precedent to Communion. Of both parties the few 
who think otherwise constitute an insignificant numer- 
ical exception. But there is one consideration rela- 
tive to Pedobaptism, which shows that it is not 
optional with its advocates to recognize- the priority of 
baptism to the Lord's Supper. That consideration is, 
that they (as the term Pedobaptists indicates) believe 
in, and practice infant baptism. To unconscious in- 
fants they apply what they improperly call the **seal 
of the ^covenant." They do this before the infants 
are physically, not to say spiritually, capable of eat- 
ing and drinking the sacramental elements. It is 
plain, therefore, that the practice of infant baptism 
gives an inevitable precedence to baptism and not to 



192 APPENDIX. 

communion. For Baptists, with their views, to insist 
on the priority of the Lord's Supper to Baptism, is 
unscriptural — but for Pedobaptists, with their senti- 
ments, to do so, is not only unscriptural but prepos- 
terous. It involves a palpable absurdity, for it in- 
volves a palpable impossibility. 

As to the principle, then, which regulates an ap- 
proach to the Lord's Table, Baptists and Pedobaptists 
are agreed. They both say, the New Testament does 
not tolerate the approach of the unbaptized. Wherein 
do they differ? As already stated, in what Baptism 
consists. Pedobaptists have heretofore admitted 
(whatever they may admit now), that immersion, 
pouring, and sprinkling were all valid baptismal acts. 
And whether the subjects of these acts were intelli- 
gent believers or speechless infants, made no diffe- 
rence as to the validity of the baptism. On the other 
hand. Baptists now% as ever (for on these points they 
exemplify a happy immutability), insist that believers 
in Christ are the only scriptural subjects of baptism, 
and that immersion in water is the only baptismal 
action. Recognizing a New Testament church as 
composed of immersed believers, they of necessity 
deny the church membership of Pedobaptists, and 
considering the Lord's Supper as exclusively a 
church ordinance, they cannot, without disloyalty to 
the King in Zion, invite Pedobaptists to the table of 
the Lord. Pedobaptist societies are not Gospel 
churches. Those composing these societies have not 



ON COMM'UNION. 193 

been immersed on a profession of faith in Christ. 
Instead, an act altosfether unlike immersion has been 
performed on the great mass of them, and that act 
not bearing date after the dawn of the intelhgence of 
adult years, but during the ignorance of infantile 
unconsciousness. How can Baptists regard Pedo- 
baptists as baptized and members of Gospel churches, 
when, before they could do so, they must abjure the 
distinctive principles which make them Baptists? 
The courtesy of such a recognition could originate 
alone in the sacrifice of truth ; and such a courtesy 
would be as worthless to those receiving it as dis- 
graceful to those extending it. 

Every visible church of Christ may be considered 
a sacred inclosure, susceptible of entrance in but one 
way. In that inclosure is set the table of the Lord. 
And the Lord of the table has prescribed the terms 
of admittance into that inclosure. Those who have 
complied with the terms and entered in, are the guar- 
dians of that table. They must see to it that it is 
approached only in the way the Lord of the inclosure 
and the table has specified. If they are appealed to, to 
change the entrance-way, or to make a new entrance, 
or to allow those without to make ways of entrance to 
suit themselves, they must say with earnest emphasis : 
-THERE IS ONE LAWGIYER''— '^ we have no 

SUCH CUSTOM, NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GoD." 

I know it will be said— for it has been said a thou- 
sand times — the table is the Lord's. This all will 
17 



194 APPENDIX. 

concede. But how different are the reasonings based 
on this concession ! Pedobaptists say, as it is the 
Lord's Table, they have a right to approach it — that 
as it is not the table of the Baptists, the Baptists 
ought not to place obstructions in the way of their 
approach, etc. Baptists say, as it is the Lord's Table, 
it must be approached in the way he directs — that 
Ins proprietorship of the table furnishes the reason 
of their course — that if it was their table thev would 
have discretionary authority, whereas they now have 
none — that they do not place obstructions in the way 
of Pedobaptists, but that the Lord of the table has 
done it, etc. This is a specimen of the logic em- 
ployed by the two parties in this controversy. Which 
species of logic indicates greater loyalty to Christ, the 
reader may determine. 

Pursuing the illustration already presented, I 
observe that there is no place in this wide world 
except the sacred inclosures, which are visible 
Churches of Christ, where the table of the Lord can 
be set. Any table set without, is not the Lord's 
Table. The people of the Lord, that is, regenerated 
persons, may approach it, but it is not the table of 
the Lord. I mean, it is not a table set according to 
his direction, and that those who set it disregard his 
instructions. That these instructions are intentionally 
disregarded, I do not affirm, but they are disregarded. 
And here we see another reason why Baptists cannot, 
and ought not to commune with Pedobaptists. The 



ON COMMUNION. 195 

tables of the latter are set in the wrong place. There 
is an inversion, a dislocation of JSTew Testament order. 
Baptists, unless they prove recreant to their Lord, 
cannot sanction the inversion — cannot practically 
indorse the dislocation. Not only are these tables 
set in the wrong place, but they are accessible to 
those to whom the Lord's Table is not accessible. 
They may be approaclied (indeed it is the boast of 
those who preside at them) and are approached by 
the unimmersed, and the unimmersed are unbap- 
tized. Pedobaptist communicants maintain that they 
have been baptized — I shall not impeach their sin- 
cerity — but they have not been baptized. I enter 
not here into the baptismal argument; this I have 
done in the first two '' Reasons why I am a Baptist," 
to which the reader is referred. The belief of Pedo- 
baptists, that they have been baptized, is, of course, 
uninfluential with Baptists, because the latter believe 
the very opposite. They must, therefore, not only 
consider Pedobaptists out of the visible churches of 
Christ, but destitute of all Gospel right to approach 
the table of the Lord. Is not this plain ? Do not 
both parties in this controversy agree that Baptism is 
prerequisite to Communion ? Certainly. And Pedo- 
baptists insist they have been baptized ; but this 
Baptists most positively deny ; and as they deny it, 
they must, so far as baptism is concerned, look upon 
every community of Pedobaptists as they do on 
Quakers, who repudiate baptism altogether. For 



196 APPENDIX. 

there is surely nothing worse in rejecting baptism 
altogether, than in substituting something else in ita 
place. Each act is disloyalty to the Institutor of the 
ordinance. Now as Baptists believe in the priority 
of Baptism to Communion, and consider Pedobaptists 
unbaptized, how can there be intercommunion ? 
Baptists cannot regard Pedobaptists as entitled to 
seats at the table of the Lord, for they are without 
baptism and, therefore, without church membership. 
In the absence of these two things there never has 
been, and there never will be an evangelical approach 
to the Lord's Table. 

How stands the matter ? Jesus Christ says, 
"Repent, believe, and be immersed ;'' and of these 
believing penitents, when immersed, his visible 
Churches were composed in primitive times, and are 
composed now. This may be regarded as a Baptist 
axiom. What say the Rabbis of Pedobaptist Israel ? 
** Let infants be sprinkled in their infancy, and grow 
up in the Church, and when capable of repenting and 
believing let them perform these duties, and be taken 
into full membership, commemorating the death of 
the Redeemer,'' etc. How different the two plans 
of procedure ! And why do they differ ? Because 
one is divine, and the other human. The human 
plan disarranges the order of the plan divine. Will 
it be said, the difference between these plails is not 
material ? Who art thou. Oh ! mai?^ that sayest a 
deviation from the pattern furnished by Christ him 



ON COMMUNION. 197 

self is not material ? Who endowed thee with wisdom 
to discern between the material and the immaterial, 
when the commission of the Redeemer, given just 
before his ascension to heaven, and unrepealed 
through all subsequent ages says, '' Teaching them 
TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I 
HAVE COMMANDED YOU/' 

If Moses, when about to make the tabernacle, was 
admonished of God thus : " See that thou make all 
things according to the pattern showed to thee in the 
mount," is remissness or disobedience to be tolerated 
in the structure of a church of Jesus Christ ? Why 
call we the Saviour, Lord, Lord, if we do not the 
things which he commands? He while on earth, 
as if to attach a solemn importance to what he knew 
men would be disposed to pronounce ** non-essential," 
said, ** Whosoever shall break one of these least 
commandments, and shall teacb men so, he shall be 
called the least in the kingdom of heaven." How 
necessary to do just what the Lord Jesus requires — 
no more — no less ! Reverence for his authority, and 
love for his name, may be shown by an observance 
of the least as well as of the greatest of his com- 
mandments. 

To the communion of Pedobaptists it is an insuper- 
able objection that they have no Gospel baptiem, and 
no Gospel churches. And there are other objections, 
I will mention one : Their baptized infants, so called, 

are ineligible to their communion. It is manifest 
17* 



198 APPENDIX. 

from the New Testament, that the baptized had a 
right to commune at the Lord's Table, unless by act- 
ing unworthily of the Christian character, they for- 
feited fellowship in the cl^urches of which they were 
members. But Pedobaptists administer what they 
call baptism to infants, hoping that they may become 
Cliristians in after life and commemorate the Saviour's 
death, but not knowing, by any means, that this will 
be the case. Indeed, in thousands of instances com- 
munion never follows baptism at all. And this ought 
to create in Pedobaptists a suspicion that their plan 
of operation is unscriptural. As God has joined Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper together, they ought not 
to be divorced. But it will be said that infants are 
not capable of discerning the body and blood of Jesus 
Christ in the communion. This is, doubtless, true; 
nor are they capable of discerning the import of bap- 
tism. There are solemn obligations connected with 
both ordinances, and if inability to understand the 
oblioations connected with one of the ordinances ren- 

o 

ders it improper to observe that ordinance, the same 
inability, in regard to the other, renders its obser- 
vance improper. And thus the fact that infants 
ought not to commune, certainly proves that they 
ought not to be baptized. Lifants as infants have 
nothing to do with either ordinances. The two ordt-* 
nances go together, and, therefore, the system 'of 
Pedobaptism, in disjoining them, exhibits its unscrip- 
tural character. Baptists do not divorce the ordi- 



ON COMMUNION. 199 

nances. Among them the baptized take their seats 
at the table of the Lord. Those who avow their 
allegiance to Christ in baptism, commemorate his 
death at his table. This is in accordance with gospel 
order. And while Baptists are invidiously charged 
with close communion, their communion is, in some 
respects, less restricted than that of any religious 
denomination — that is to say, they commune with all 
they baptize. They are not guilty of the flagrant 
inconsistency of admitting the same persons to one 
ordinance, and repelling them from the other. And 
vieAving their practice as scriptural, and, therefore, 
consistent, I can say, with emphatic satisfaction, that 
I am a Baptist, because there is, among Baptists 
alone, a scriptural observance of the Lord's Supper. 
Pedobaptist tables are set without the precincts of 
the visible Churches of Christ, and the really unbap- 
tized are invited thereto, while multitudes, whom 
every Pedobaptist considers baptized, are kept away. 
Such a course Baptists condemn, and cannot, there- 
fore, incur the responsibility of encouraging it by 
word or deed. Were they to sanction it, they would 
act inconsistenly with their conscientious convictions, 
and deliberately sin against God. They would shew 
irreverence for the authority of Christ, by disregard- 
ing the order he has established. Could they consent 
to do this, they would be unworthy of seats at the 
Lord's Table, and Pedobaptists could not, in the feai 
of God, invite them to their communion. What ! 



200 APPENDIX. 

would they be willing to commune with a denomina- 
tion whose presence at their tables would involve dis- 
loyalty to Christ and a sacrifice of principles, held 
sacred for centuries ? purely not. The truth is, 
there can be no propriety in intercommunion be- 
tween Baptists and Pedobaptists while they remain 
as they are. Nor should the latter, as they often do, 
invite the former to commune with them. This cus- 
tom, which prevails in many places, is an offensive 
one. Pedobaptists do not look upon it in this light, 
and I, therefore, do not charge them with giving in- 
tentional offense. Still their course is offensive. Let 
us see: they believe that Baptists cannot conscien- 
tiously commune with them ; for they would not 
desire intercommunion if they believed Baptists 
were not conscientious in their course. Then it fol- 
lows, that Pedobaptists, in inviting Baptists to com- 
mune with them, ask them to do what the former 
believe the latter cannot conscientiously do. One of 
the best men* I ever knew, in conversing with me on 
this point, said : '*I consider it an insult for a man to 
invite me to do what he knows I cannot conscien- 
tiously do.'' Who will say this language was too 
strong? What does tlje invitation, in such a case, 
imply ? Evidently that he who invites, thinks he who 
is invited can be induced to violate his conscientious 
convictions. Will any one say there is nothing offen- 

* Elder William Warder. 



ON COMMUNION. 201 

sive, not to say insulting, in this ? Propriety requires 
that Pedobaptists forbear inviting Baptists to com- 
mune with them. And it need not be said that Bap- 
tists who understand the teachings of the New 
Testament, will never extend an invitation to Pedo- 
baptists. 

I am aware that the practice of Baptists, in regard 
to communion, is often pronounced illiberal, unchari- 
table, and indicative of bigotry. I answer, thai is a 
spurious liberality which transcends the liberality of 
the New Testament, and that is a false charity which 
rejoices in anything but the truth. As to bigotry, it 
can have no place in the heart of that man whose 
supreme attachment is to the truth of God, and not 
to the dogmas of a sect. If, therefore, the New Tes- 
tament justifies the course which Baptists pursue, 
they are neither illiberal, nor uncharitable, nor 
bigoted. 

But it is often insinuated that Baptists attach so 
much importance to immersion as to make it a saving 
ordinance, and that by refusing to commune with 
Pedobaptists, it is denied that they are partakers of 
the grace of God. This insinuation, or objection, or 
whatever it may be called, I repel in the language 
of two great men. Abraham Booth, in his *' Vindi- 
cation of the Baptists," in referring to baptism, says : 
** It is too notorious to admit a plea of ignorance in 
any of our opponents, that we consider no one as a 
proper subject of that institution who does not profess 



202 APPENDIX. 

repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus 
Christ ; wlio does not, in other words, appear to be 
in a state of salvation. Nay, so far fiom making 
baptism a sating ordinance, we do not — we cannot 
consider any one as a proper subject of it, who looks 
upon it in that light." See Booth's ** Yindication,'' 
etc, section 1. 

And what says Robert Hall ? In his works. Vol. 
iv, p. 246, he remarks: '* Baptism, it has often 
been said, is not a saving ordinance. It is not ; and 
we, of all people, can best repel this objection, for we 
believe that this rite belongs to such only as are 
saved, only to true believers, of whom we read, that 
' the Lord added to the Church daily, such as are 
saved.' How others can escape from this objection, 
I must leave themselves to explain; how they can 
affirm that they do not consider baptism essential to 
salvation." Here Mr. Hall, as a Baptist, repels the 
objection under consideration, but intimates, if I un- 
derstand hi4i$ that it would be difficult for Pedobap- 
tists to show that they do not make baptism essential 
to salvation. 

It is often charged against Baptists as a palpable 
inconsistency, that they invite Pedobaptists to preach 
for them and then refuse to invite them to com-^ 
mune. This charge, I confess my inability to meet. 
The inconsistency is, I think, too glaring, to be suc- 
cessfully denied. According to the New Testament, 
Baptism and Church Membership do not more cer- 



ON COMMUNION. 203 

tainly precede Communion at the Lord's Table, than 
they do a consecration to the work of the gospel 
ministry. It is therefore, as inconsistent for Baptists 
to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel minis- 
ters, as it is to commune with them.* There are 
many in the South and West who see this inconsist- 
ency, and will be guilty of it no longer. They are 
determined to act in accordance with God's word, let 
consequences be as they may. The Lord increase 
their number ! 

It is a singular fact, that after all that has been 
said and written by Pedobaptists in favor of open 
communion, though it has been referred to as the 
great desideratum of Christendom — there is to this 
day no such thing as open communion among Pedo- 
baptists themselves. In this statement, I am not to 
be understood as embracing Romanists, though they 
are Pedobaptists. I mean, that among those Pedo- 
baptist denominations popularly termed evangelical, 
there is not open communion. Presbyterians and 
Methodists will commune too^ether and denounce 
each other's Calvinism and Arminianism the next 
day, if not the next hour. ISTot many years have 
passed away since the Old School General Assembly 



*The author does not here enlarge on this subject, because 
he has discussed it in a Tract, which has acquired an unex- 
pected notoriety, and called forth much discussion. The title 
of the Tract is, " An Old Landmark Reset." 



204 APPENDIX. 

of the Presbyterians declined an invitation to com- 
mune with the New School General Assembly, both 
being in session at the same time. Do Episcopalians 
commune with Presbyterians and Methodists? They 
do not. They will allow Presbyterians and Method- 
ists to come to their table, but will not reciprocate the 
act. As a British statesman once said on another 
subject : ** All the reciprocity is on one side." I say 
again, that after all that has been said by Pedobap- 
tists in commendation of open communion, there i& 
not among themselves a solitary exemplification of it. 
And their great anxiety to commune with Baptists is 
of comparatively recent date. There was no such 
anxiety in May 2, 1648, when the Presbyterians 
bavins: the ascendencv in the British Parliament, 
passed '' such a law against heretics (to use the lan- 
guage of Neal,) as is hardly to be paralleled among 
Protestants.'' It specifies ** heresies" and " errors." 
Among the ''errors," I observe this: ''That the 
baptism of infants is unlawful and void ; and that 
such persons ought to be baptized again." Upon 
" conviction" or " confession" of this " error," the 
person implicated, was to "renounce it in the public 
congregation," or, " in case of refusal, be com.mitted 
to prison till he find sureties that he shall not publish 
or maintain the said error or errors any more."* 
There was in that day no desire to commune with 



Neal's History of the Puritans, Part iii, chap. 10. 



ON COMMUNION. 206 

Baptists. A Baptist had to renounce the distinctive 
pecuUarities making him a Baptist, to keep out of 
prison. He could not, in his Baptist character, com- 
mune with Presbyterians. No, as a Baptist, he was 
thought fit only for a prison, and could not, even if 
inclined, be present at a Presbyterian communion. 
The law, too, must have contemplated imprisonment 
for life ; for it was to continue till *' sureties" were 
obtained, etc. In the case of real Baptists, *' sure- 
ties " could not, of course, be found. Therefore, 
imprisonment for life was provided for. 

JSTor was there on the part of Congregationalists 
in New England, a desire to commune with Baptists, 
when, in the early settlement of the country, to be a 
Baptist was to incur fines, scourging, imprisonment, 
and exile. Oh, no, open communion, falsely so 
called, is a recent thing. It has not sufiicient age on 
its side to make it really respectable. 

I have said, it would be inconsistent for Baptists to 
commune with Pedobaptists. I now say, it is 
strangely inconsistent for Pedobaptists to desire com- 
munion with Baptists. Why ? I will not enlarge 
upon the topic ; but I will affirm this, that as they 
believe infant baptism to be a divinely appointed rite, 
it is obviously inconsistent in them to wish to com- 
mune with those who believe it one of the most per 
nicious of human traditions. They know this is the 
belief of Baptists, and how they can say, '* Come, 

let us commune together,'' is more than I can com- 
18 



206 APPENDIX. 

prehend. There are many other matters that I shall 
not mention, which sliow the inconsistency of Pedo- 
baptists in desiring communion with Baptists. The 
mind of the intelHgent reader will readily call them 
up. 

As Pedobaptists so often complain that they are 
not allowed to commune with their * 'Baptist brethren," 
it will perhaps surprise them when I announce the 
proposition, that, no member of a baptist church 

CAN CLAIM IT AS A RIGHT, TO COMMUNE WITH ANT 
OTHER BAPTIST CHURCH. 

This proposition I fully believe, and will attempt to 
illustrate. Its truth results from two facts : 1st. 
Every church is the guardian of the purity of the 
ordinances of Jesus Christ : 2d. Every church is 
an independent body — a democratic sovereignty 
under Christ. That every church is under sacred 
obligations to preserve the purity and integrity of 
the ordinances, maybe seen from 1 Cor. xi, 2. ''Now 
I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all 
things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them 
to you.'' I shall not stop to inquire, whether the 
term ordinances in the passage, has exclusive refer- 
ence, or any reference at all, to Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper. If, as some suppose, the allusion is 
to the delivery of ** certain doctrines, or rules, re- 
specting the good order and the government of the 
Church," it does not in the least affect my argument. 
For, if a church is under obligation to observe ** rules " 



ON COMMUNION. 201 

given for its government, it surely is under obliga- 
tion to preserve in their integrity and purity, Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper. How is the ordinance of 
baptism to be preserved, according to the original 
appointment of Christ ? Every church must see that 
the act is performed which Christ enjoined, and that 
it is performed on proper subjects. Who is to do 
this , if the churches do not ? Will men of the 
world ? They would be singular conservators of the 
integrity of a divine ordinance. And how are the 
churches to preserve this ordinance incorrupt, unless 
every local congregation of saints feels its local re- 
sponsibility ? If it is said that unworthy persons 
sometimes gain admittance into the best churches, 
the fact is conceded. But what does this prove? 
Nothing but what all knov>^, viz : that church mem- 
bers cannot search the heart. And though difficulties 
may result from their ignorance of the hearts of those 
who apply ^or membership, it would be equally fool- 
ish and wicked in them to complain that they are not 
omniscient. 

As of Baptism so of the Lord's Supper. Its purity 
is to be preserved by the preservation of a pure 
membership. A church of Christ is, according to 
the Gospel, composed of a "peculiar people," called 
" saints." They are the hght of the world and the 
salt of the earth. Still, imperfection attaches to 
them — they are prone to evil. They often depart 
from God. It is difficult to know ho\^ far a Christian 



208 APPENDIX. 

may deviate from the path of duty ; nor is it desirable 
to know. Unworthy persons, as ah'eady intimated, 
will insinuate themselves into the fellowship of the 
best churches. Now the fact that Jesus Christ has 
given to his churches tlie power of discipline, shows 
that they are designed to be pure organizations. 
One of the churches of Asia is commended because 
it could not bear those that were evil. The Thessa- 
lonian church was required to withdraw from every 
disorderly brother, and the Corinthians were advised 
to expel a member. The retention of unworthy 
members in a church contaminates its purity. A 
little leaven often leavens the whole lump. And the 
Head of the church, to vindicate his own honor, 
removes the candlestick out of its place. Now the 
purity of a church must be maintained in order to 
the purity of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. A 
pure membership will exercise a sacred guardianship 
over the Supper of the Lord. But suppose members 
of other churches had the right to commune with an 
orderly church walking in the fear of the Lord. And 
suppose the discipline of those churches to be lax, 
and their members, many of them at least, heretical 
in sentiment and disorderly in practice. If they had 
the right to commune with the orderly church referred 
to, how would it be possible for that church to guard 
the table of the Lord from the approach of the un- 
worthy? It would be impossible. The disorderly 
members of other churches (Baptist churches, I 



ON COMMUNION. 209 

mean) would claim seats at that table as a matter ot 
riffkt, and the sacred feast would be contaminated by 
their presence. The truth is, no church can of right 
be required to invite to its communion those over 
whom it has no power of discipline. It may do so, 
and ought to do so as a matter of courtesy, but only 
as a matter of courtesy. There is no right in the 
case. The invitation may be extended, or restricted, 
or withheld, as the church may decide, and the deci- 
sion of the church should, of course, contemplate the 
preservation of the purity of the ordinance. This 
being the case, a church may at one time, through 
Christian courtesy, invite the members of another 
church to its communion, and at another time with- 
hold the invitation, because the latter church may be 
in the one instance, in Gospel order, in the other, in 
manifest disorder. 

But let it not be forgotten that every church is an 
independent body. This fact forever settles the 
question that intercommunion between the members 
of Baptist churches is based on courtesy and not on 
right. If a church is independent, how can the mem- 
bers of another church interfere with its action ? 
How can they claim anything of it on the ground of 
right ? A church would exemplify a rare indepen- 
dence, if those not belonging to it could rightfully 
demand seats in it at the table of the Lord ! Every 
church, being independent, must act for itself, and is, 
therefore, as evidently bound to maintain the ordi* 
18* 



210 APPENDIX. 

nances of Christ in their purity, as if there wtre nc 
other church under heaven. And here we see one 
of the many excellencies of the Congregational form 
of government. Pedobaptist churches, so called, 
such as the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist, 
extend over states and provinces. Local congrega- 
tions are in a great measure exempt from such 
responsibilities as rest on those with whom is the 
sovereign power under Christ. The Episcopalian 
looks to his General Convention, the Presbyterian to 
his General Assembly, and the Methodist to his 
General Conference as the highest authority as the 
supreme judicatory. This fact must impair the sense 
of congregational and individual responsibility. 

Every Baptist feels that he is a sovereign citizen 
of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Every Baptist 
church is a sovereign democracy, on which devolves 
the duty of executing the laws of Christ and of pre- 
serving in their primitive purity and integrity the 
ordinances of the Gospel. Let it not be supposed 
that because Baptist churches are thus independent 
their members love one another less. Christian love 
is neither created nor preserved by the acts of Synods 
nor the edicts of Conferences. It is originated by 
the influence of the Holy Spirit, and perpetuated by 
the same agency. This love prompts the exercise 
of the Christian courtesy already referred to, and 
makes it delio-htful to sit down with our fellow- Chris- 
tians at the table of the Lord. And while we deny 



ON COMMUNION. 211 

to members of Baptist churches of the same faith 
and order with ourselves the right to claim admittance 
to the Lord's Table in any church except that to 
which they belong, nothing is more common than 
cordial invitations by courtesy. 

I am aware that the proposition I have aimed to 
illustrate, will be regarded by many as novel. But 
little, so far as I know, has been written on the 
subject. It does not follow that what is novel is 
false, and that what is old is true. Let the proposi- 
tion be well considered before any sweeping sentence 
of condemnation is pronounced against it. However, 
if well considered, I think it will command universal 
acquiescence among all those who believe that every 
church is, under Christ, an independent sovereignty. 

The fourth Reason why I am a Baptist, I have 
now given, and I believe it a good reason: It la 

BECAUSE AMONG BaPTISTS ALONE IS THERE A SCRIPTU- 
RAL OBSERVANCE OF THE LoRD's SuPPEB. 



APPENDIX NO. II 



CIROUMCISION. 

Since tlie publication of the foregoing work in 
1853, I have examined the covenant of Circumcision 
with special reference to its 'perpetuity.' The exam- 
ination has convinced me that it is a perpetual cove- 
nant, to be observed by the Jews in all their genera- 
tions. All the considerations which have exerted 
their influence in leading me to this conclusion, can- 
not here be mentioned. I will, however, name a few 
of the most prominent : 

1. The epithet ^' everlasting,^^ is applied to the cove- 
nant in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, which con- 
tains the first reference to circumcision. By virtue of 
this covenant, of which Circumcision was the ** token," 
the land of Canaan was given to Abraham and his 
seed ** for an everlasting possession." If the pos- 
session was to be everlasting, then the covenant 
securing the possession must be everlasting. If it be 
said, the epithet *' everlasting" is to be understood 
in a limited sense, I grant it. That is to say, I sup- 
pose it does not refer to eternal duration. But 
while *' the world stands," the Jews will have a righl 
r212J 



ON CIRCUMCISION. 213 

to the land of Canaan, and in this sense their posses- 
sion of it will be ** everlasting." 

2. The Jews will actually return to Palestine. On 
any other supposition it is exceedingly difficult, if not 
absolutely impossible to explain several portions of 
Scripture. Now if the Jews are to return to the land 
of Canaan and re-occupy it, they will certainly do so 
in pursuance of the provisions of the covenant to 
which Circumcision was appended as a token. But 
uncircumcised Jews will have no right to take posses- 
sion of that land. They can exhibit no title to it. 
Circumcision will be the title to the inheritance. Un- 
circumcision is a breach of the covenant, and there- 
fore, a forfeiture of the title to the land of Canaan. 

3. There is no intimation^ in the New Testament, that 
the Jews were to discontinue Circumcision. Neither 
the Saviour nor his apostles said anything to deter 
the Jews from the observance of the rite. It is 
admitted that the Gentile Christians were exempt 
from all obligation to practice Circumcision, but the 
Jewish Christians certainly did practice it. Indeed 
it was charged against Paul that he taught the Jews 
that 'Uhey ought not to circumcise their children," 
but he very readily, at the instance of James and 
others, adopted a course which was considered a 
refutation of the charge. (See Acts xxi, 18-26.) 
Paul also circumcised Timothy ; and it will not be 
denied that Circumcision and Baptism were practiced 
cotemporaneously. Should it be said, in oppositioc 



214 



APPENDIX. 



to the perpetuity of Circumcision, that it was incor- 
porated into the Mosaic economy — which economy 
has passed away — I answer, it was made an appen- 
dage of that economy ; but as it was practiced before 
the days of Moses, it by no means follows, that it was 
abolished with the covenant of Sinai. I insist, it was 
not abolished ; but cannot here enlarge. 

Baptists occupy, in the baptismal controversy, an 
advantageous position. If their opponents could 
prove that Circumcision has been abolished, Baptists 
could then show that baptism has not taken its place. 
But if, according to the view now presented. Circum- 
cision has not been abolished, then neither baptism 
nor anything else has taken its place. It occupies its 
own 'place. Take whatever view of Circumcision we 
may, the argument derived from it, in favor of infant 
l>apt!sm, is worthless. 



THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date. April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-2 ' ' 1 



SOUTH-WESTERN BIPTIST PUBLISHING HOUSE. 



GRAVES, MARlCS & CO., 

Nashville, Tenn., No. 97 Public Square. 



IPIllllII©in)n(DAE^ FinrIBIL3IOA'2'n©S^go 
I. The Tennessee Baptist. J. R. Graves, Editor. 

This paper entered upon its 12th volume the first of September, 1855. 
It is designed to be the exponent of true IJaptist faith and consistent Bap- 
tist practice, and to reflect the leading aspects of the ''Great West" and 
the present times, and to meet and discuss the great issues of the day. 
Issue 10,000 S2.00, in advance. 

n. Southern Baptist Review. 

J.R.Graves, J. M. Pendleton, N. M. Crawford, Editors. 

This work is a Quarterly ; each issue. 160 pa^es. Making a volume o' 
896 royal octavo pages each year. Subscription price S2.00, in advance. 

It has won the reputation of being the ablest deriominational ptihlication 
in the Union. The best writers in the South contribute to its pages. It 
is, iu itself, a Theological Library. Specimen numbers sent if desired. 

III. Just the thing for your Children. 

''TENDER GRASS FOR LITTLE LAMBS." 
'' The Chiidien'H Montliiy Book." 

A Southern publication, beautifully illustrated. Edited by Uncle Robin 
and Aunt Alice, with special reference to its moral and intellectual influ- 
ence upon the young mind. Published at only $1.00 per annum. 

It is pronounced the best puhlication for children that has yet appeared 
in America. Specimen copies sent if desired. 

Any one of the following books will be promptly delivered at your Post 
OiSces, by our general Colporteur, the United States Mail, on receipt of the 
prices annexed. 

"THE GREAT IRON "WHEEL," or Republicanism 
Backwards and Christianity Reversed. By J. R. 

Graves. 576 pages, with cDgravings. (13th edition.) 
No controversial work written in the present century ever awakened so 
much attention as this wherever it has circulated. Seven editions have 
been issued within a few months and the demand is increasing. It ought 
to be read by every Baptist, every Christian, and every American citizen. 
Price $1 .00, sent by mail. 

Prof. Stuart on Baptism. Second edition. Price 75 cts. 

This work, allowed to remain in obscurity by his Pedobaptist brethren 
because it admitted vastly too much for the advocates of affusion, has been 
hunted up and republished by Graves, Marks & Co., together with an In- 
troductory Review by the Editor, and a valuable appendix s.^lected from 
the able Review of Stuart, by Wm. Judd. It is now one of the best Bap- 
tist documents extant. Pedobaptists cannot gainsay or answer it. 



•' Next to your Bible is a faithful Church History." 

CJdronological History of Foreign Baptists, from A. D 
33 to 1800. (Six editions sold i?i six months.) By G 
H. Orchard, of Eno'land. Introductory Essay by J. R 
Graves. Pp. 300. Price $1.00. (12th edition.) 
This is what it purports to be, a History of the Church of Jesus Christ, 
not of the Romish Apostacy or any of her branches. It is unquestionably 
the most valuable Church History ever written. The Author has incon- 
testably proved from Pedobaptist Hfstorians and Scholars, that the Baptist 
churches are the only Christian communities that have stood since the 
days of the Apostles. The American JKditor has received the thanks of the 
Baptist press for introduciusr this vs'ork to the American public. Let your 
children be made familiar with this work, and they will never join a Pedo- 
baptist Society. 

Orchard's History of English and Welch Baptists, 

soon to follow. Price ^1.00. Also, 

History of Dutch Baptists. By Ypeig & Durmont. 

Compiled by order of the King of Holland. 

Theodosia Ernest. A Book on a new plan. 

The most charming denominational work ever published. A Romance 
in interest, on a Thesaurus of arguments. Baptist pastors are earnestly 
requested to examine it. Yol. 1. Prit-e $1.00. 

An Old Landmark Reset. (New edition.) By J. M. 
Pendleton, Author of " Three Reasons," etc. 
It has awakened an unparalleled amount of. interest and discussion. It 
discusses the most important practical question of the age. Price 10 cents. 

"A. Campbell and Campbellism Exposed. 

This is a work of — pages, and contains all the articles that appeared 
in the discussion between A. Campbell and J. K. Graves, which were pub- 
lished in the Tennessee Baptist, which fact Mr. Campbell denies, although 
he has seen them in the •• Baptist ! !'' 

The man as well as his system is exposed in this work. Let the lovers 

of truth get a copy for preservation . Sold at cost of publication — 15 cents. 

Reformation ; or, the Church of Christ cannot be reformed — and 

therefore Pedobaptist Societies are without a ministry — without valid 

ordinances or a valid ecclesiastical existence. By J. L. Waller. L. L. D. 

The Abrahainic Coreiiant no Oronud for Infant 

IBaptiisiu. By Mat. Hillsman, with valuable extracts from the long 

suiipressed work uf John Milton, poet. Pp. 119, price 25 cents. 

<< Baptism of Jesus." By N. M. Crawford, Mercer University, 
Ga. Price 10 cents by mail. 

'^Aphesis Aniartioon ;" or, the Baptism of Repentance for the 
Kemission of Sins. By N. M. Crawfoku, Mercer University, Ga, 
This is the ablest and most satisfactory discussion of this subject that the 

controversy on the remission of sins has yet elicited. Price 10 cents per 

copy, or $1.00 per dozen. 

Reasons for Becoming a Baptist. By Wm. L. Slack. With 

an Essay on Communion, l^iice 10 cents, free of postage. 

JDesire of all Nations. A Sermon by J. R. Graves. Pp. 83, price 

10 cents, free of postage. 

The H^atchman's Reply; or, the Signs of the Times and the 
Necessities of the Churches. By J. R. Grates. Pp. 93, price 15 cent^ 
free of postage. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 496 958 9 



